IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM
Dated this the 8th Day of May 2019
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President
Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, BSc,LL.B, Member
CC No.120/18
Ashok Kumar.K.S : Complainant
Padinjatte Charuvila Veedu
Mangadu P.O
Kollam-691015
[By Adv.Uliyakovil S.Navas]
V/s
- Manager : Opposite parties
Supertron Electronics Pvt.Ltd.
12/1,1st Floor
C.V.R. Building,Hosur road
Wilson Garden,Bangalore-560027
- Manager
Classic,1st Floor
Bishop Jerome Nagar
Kollam-691001.
- Manager
Gionee Exclusive
Ammachiveedu Junction
Kollam-691013.
ORDER
E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M,President
This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows.
The 1st opposite party is having monopoly over the Gionee S6S, Latte Gold Colour, Morshmallo 6.0 cellular phone. 2nd opposite party is the authorised retail merchant of the above mobile phone. 3rd opposite party is the authorised repairer of the mobile phone. The complainant is a consumer. On 06.03.17 the complainant purchased one mobile phone manufactured by Gionee
2
S66 by paying Rs.16,000/- from the 2nd opposite party who has given 1 year warrantee for the phone from the date of purchase. However when he started to use the said mobile phone it was found that it is not in a working condition due to the blue tooth complaint. Hence on 23.06.17 the complainant entrusted the same to the 3rd opposite party who issued a service job sheet. On the same day the 3rd opposite party returned the mobile phone by stating that defects were rectified by him and also received back the job sheet. But on the same day when the complainant verified the mobile phone it was understood that he was cheated. The mobile phone returned was not the one entrusted by the complainant by the 3rd opposite party which was clear from the colour of the mobile phone cover. However the 3rd opposite party has installed the IMEI number of the mobile phone in the one returned. The same was also defective and not in a working condition. The complainant caused to convince these facts to the 3rd opposite party and also returned the defective mobile phone with a request to either cure the defect completely or to return a new working mobile phone. The 3rd opposite party received the same and also issued a service job sheet on 25.09.17. However inspite of the complainant contacted the 3rd opposite party he has not returned the mobile phone after curing the defect nor substituted any mobile phone in a working condition and there by the complainant sustained mental agony apart from financial loss. The 2nd opposite party has sold mobile phone having manufacturing defect. Therefore the opposite parties are bound to replace the mobile phone by a defect free new one or to cure the defect of the defective mobile phone. But they have not done so. On 23.03.18 the complainant caused to send a lawyer notice to the opposite parties. Though they received the notice neither sent any reply nor cured the defect of the mobile phone. The above conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.
3
Though notice was served. Opposite party 1 to 3 remained absent. The complainant filed proof affidavit and got marked Ext.P1 to P6 documents. Since none of the opposite parties have turned up and not cross examined the complainant, they were set exparte.
Heard the counsel for the complainant.
The complainant has filed affidavit by re-iterating the averments in the complaint. Ext.P1 is the retail invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party while selling the Gionee S6S mobile phone bearing IMEI 861598030066246 for Rs.16,000/-. Ext.P2 is the Gionee warrantee card which would indicate that the complainant is the customer and the mobile phone is having 1 year warrantee from the date of purchase of the hand set. Ext.P3 is the service job sheet issued by the 3rd opposite party which would indicate that the complainant has entrusted to the mobile phone to the 3rd opposite party by alleging that the hand set is dead. Ext.P4 is the lawyer notice alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No.1 to 3. Ext.P5 and P6 are the postal receipts and postal acknowledgement card evidencing the sending and receipt of lawyer notice to the opposite parties. The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.P1 to P6 documents would establish the case of the complainant. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get an order as prayed for the complaint.
In the result the complaint stands allowed directing the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 to return Rs.16000/- being the price of the defective mobile phone to the complainant. The 3rd opposite party is directed to return the defective mobile phone to the 2nd opposite party within 30 days from today. Opposite party No.1 to 3 are further directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 are also directed to pay Rs.3000/- as costs of the proceeding to the complainant.
4
Opposite party No.1 to 3 are directed to comply with the directions within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover Rs.16000/- + 10,000/- with interest @ 9% from the date if complaint till realisation with costs Rs.3000/- from opposite party No.1 to 3 and from their assets.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 8th day of May 2019.
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1 : Retail Invoice
Ext.P2 : Gionee Warrantee Card
Ext.P3 : Copy of service job sheet
Ext.P4 : True copy of Advocate notice
Ext.P5 : Postal receipts
Ext.P6 : Acknowledgement card
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
