BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 14/08/2012

Date of Order : 31/01/2013

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 496/2012

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The undisputed facts of the complainant’s case are as follows :-

On 09-03-2012, the complainant purchased a mobile phone from the 2^nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party at a price of Rs. 13,000/-. From the very next day of purchase of the mobile handset, the button of the camera became defunct and the symbian version application was not working. At the instance of the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant approached the service centre. On 4 occasions, the complainant had to approach the service centre to get the defects of the mobile handset repaired. However, they could not rectify the same. Accordingly, the complainant intimated the matter to the 1^st opposite party. Thereafter, the 1^st opposite party replaced the mobile handset with fresh warranty. The complainant could not charge the mobile handset, since the replaced set as well became defunct. At that juncture, the complainant requested the opposite party to refund the price of the mobile handset. The 1^st opposite party again replaced the set with another one instead. The third one also is not working. So, the complainant had to suffer lot of inconveniences and mental agony due to the supply of a defective handsets. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a total sum of Rs. 22,193/- which includes the price of the handset.

2. The notice issued against the 1^st opposite party was returned with an endorsement ’addressee left’. The said endorsement can be treated as deemed service of notice, in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in NJM Properties Vs. Kumaresh Majumdar IV (2012) CPJ 546. In spite of service of notice from this Forum, the 2^nd opposite party opted not to contest the matter for reasons not stated which practically amounts to their admission to the cause. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on his side. Heard the complainant who appeared in person.

3. The only point that comes up for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 22,193/- from the opposite parties?

4. Ext. A1 invoice goes to show that on 09-03-2012, the complainant purchased a mobile handset from the 2^nd opposite party, which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party at a price of Rs. 13,000/-. According to the complainant on 2 occasions, the opposite parties replaced the mobile handset of the complainant. since the third one also became defunct, the complainant caused Ext. A3 series communications to the opposite parties demanding to refund the price of the gadget. It is to be noted that nothing is on record to controvert the averments of the complainant in this Forum as observed above. The opposite parties have opted not to respond to the notice issued from this Forum as well which speaks volumes. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we are only to hold that the complainant is entitled to get the price of the mobile handset refunded. Our decision is based on the ruling of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Sony Ericsson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal IV (2007) CPJ 294 (NC), in which the Hon’ble National Commission held that a frustrated consumer is entitled to get refund of the price of the gadget. Evidently, the complainant had to suffer lot of inconveniences and mental agony due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and especially due to the absence of their presence in this Forum. Compensation is called for. We fix it at Rs. 2,000/-.

5. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :-

1. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund the price of the mobile handset as per Ext. A1 with interest @ 12% p.a. from 09-03-2012 till realization. The complainant is directed to return the defective mobile handset to the opposite parties simultaneously.

2. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally also pay Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for the reasons stated above.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of January 2013.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant’s Exhibits :-

Opposite party’s Exhibits :: Nil

=========