D.O.F. 31-10-2017
D.O.O. 31-10-2019
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. Roy Paul : President
Smt. Moly Kutty Mathew. : Member
Dated this the 31st day of October,2019
C.C.361/2017
Vasantha.P,
Puthiyapurakkal House, Complainant
Kooveri (PO),
Taliparamba.
(Rep. by Adv. K.J. Thomas)
Manager,
3G Mobile World, Opposite party
Near Nambras Muthethadath School,
Taliparamba.
(Rep. by Adv. Sreeja Pransath)
O R D E R
Smt. Moly Kutty Mathew, Member
This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for an order directing the opposite party to pay the value of the mobile phone Rs.5,750 and compensation for Rs.5,000 to the complainant.
The case of the complainant in brief:-
The complainant had purchased a mobile phone Lenovo B model worth Rs.5,750 from opposite party on 27-06-2017. But on the next day the phone became damaged and the display was not working, though the complainant approached the opposite party and the opposite party repaired the phone. Then on 05-07-17 again the phone damaged and the complainant approached the opposite party for repair the same. But on 12-09-17 the opposite party informed the complainant for repairing charge. But the complainant states that the damage caused to the mobile phone within the 1 year guarantee period. The opposite party either to repair the set until warranty or replace another set. so there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
Hence the complaint.
The opposite party entered appearance before the Forum and submitted his written version. The opposite party contended that he is only the dealer of mobile phone. The manufacturer and authorized service centres are responsible for repair and warranty of the phone. Opposite party contended that the handset become defective due to fall on the ground or it caused physical damage. Moreover the complainant is not impleaded as the manufacturer and service centre are the necessary party. So the non joinder of necessary party is a serious defect on the side of complainant. So the opposite party is not liable either to replace the phone or refund the price. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
1.Whterh there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2.Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs?
3. Reliefs and cost?
The evidence on merit of the oral testimony of PW1 and marked Ext.A1 to A5 documents. No oral evidence from the side of opposite party. No document marked from the side of opposite party.
Issue No.1:
The complainant adduced evidence before the Fora by submitting her chief affidavit in lieu of her chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. She was cross examined as PW1 by the opposite party. The documents Ext.A1 to A5 marked as her part to substantiate her case. According to the complainant the phone was purchased on 27-06-17 as per Ext. A1 bill from opposite party. As per Ext. A2 the service Job Sheet dated 05-07-17, it is clearly states that there is coverage of warranty period. But on 12-09-17 the opposite party informed the complainant to pay repairing charge. So opposite party bound either to repair the phone at free of cost or replace/refund. Since the opposite party denied to repair/replace the phone. There is deficiency of service on his part.
The opposite party vehemently stated that there is no deficiency o of service on his part. Since there is physical damage to the phone he is not supposed to repair/replace the phone under warranty conditions. Ext.A2 the service Job Sheet substantiate the defence. Heard both sides.
On perusal of the pleadings, documents and arguments we the For a hold that the mobile phone which was purchased on 27-06-17 became defective of on next day and 07-07-17, i.e. within 2 weeks after the date of purchase. Opposite party alleged physical damage no steps were taken by him to prove the same. No physical damage noted in Ext.A2 Job Sheet. Software complaint noted in Ext.A2 Job Sheet issued by the opposite party. So we are of the considered view that the opposite party is liable either to repair or replace the set under warranty. Since he failed to do so. We hold that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Hence the issue No.1 found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue No.2 &3:
As discussed above the mobile phone purchased by the complainant became defective within 2 weeks after the purchase. There is no expert proof about the alleged physical damage of the phone. More allegations without concrete evidence cannot be accepted. So we hold that the opposite party is directly bound to redressal the grievances caused to the complainant. So the complainant is entitled to get the purchase price of the phone from the opposite party. There is privity of contract between dealer and the complainant. Therefore we hold that the opposite party is liable to refund Rs.5,750 to the complainant along with Rs.3,000 as compensation cum cost of the proceedings. Thus the issue No.2 and 3 are also accordingly answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund Rs.5,750 (Rupees Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only) to the complainant along with Rs.3,000 (Rupees Three Thousand only) as compensation cum cost of the proceedings within 30 days of receipt of the order. Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On receipt of the above amount, the complainant must return the Lenovo B Model mobile handset phone to the opposite party, if opposite party demanded for the same.
Dated this the 31st day of October, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
President Member
ROY PAUL MOLLY KUTTY MATHEW
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Tax Invoice dated 27-06-17.
A2. Service Job Sheet dated 05-07-17.
A3.Copy of Lawyer Notice dated 15-09-17.
A4.Postal Receipt dated 15-09-17.
A5. Postal Acknowledgement Card.
Exhibits for the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Complainant.
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
Forwarded by Order
+
Senior Superintendent
