DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 31st day of December 2016
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 26/07/2016
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.110/2016)
Ali.H
S/o.Hussain,
Al-Minar Manzil,
Angkavalparambu,
Nadakkavu,
Palakkad,
Akathethara Post – 678 008 - Complainant
(Party in Present in Person )
Vs
Manager Firoz
ITL Communications,
Shop No.26&27,
Mangalam Towers,
Opp.Town Bus Stand,
T.B.Road, Palakkad – 678 002 - Opposite party
O R D E R
By Smt.Shiny.P.R. President.
Brief facts of complainant.
On 28-1-2016 complainant has purchased a mobile phone named Wish tel from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.1800/-.At the time of purchase opposite party told that the said mobile is working under the technology of CDMA and it has the warranty of one year. Immediately after the purchase it is seen that the number of mobile was cut. On 23-7-2016 complainant approached the opposite party to rectify the defects. At that time they said that since the CDMA of the phone was cut, this phone cannot be used further. Even after repeated requests opposite party did not repair the mobile or refund the cost of mobile. Complainant further submitted that by the act of opposite party complainant has sustained huge mental agony. Hence the complaint. The complainant prays for an order directing opposite party to replace the mobile with new one or to refund the cost of mobile along with cost of Rs 1000/-
Complaint was admitted and issued notice to opposite party. Notice to opposite party served. The opposite party remained absent. Hence set exparte.
Complainant filed chief affidavit. Ext.A1 and A2 marked. MO1 also marked.
Issues are to be considered
1.Whether there is any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
2.If so, what is the relief?
Issues 1 & 2
We have perused the documents filed before the Forum. The purchase of the mobile phone was proved as per Ext A2 and its one year warranty was proved by Ext A1 document. As per the complaint it is seen that the defect was occurred within 6 months of its purchase. As such it is a clear proof of manufacturing defects of the mobile. As the opposite party remained exparte, the evidence tendered by the complainant stands unchallenged. From the evidence adduced by the complainant, we arrived at a conclusion that by selling defective mobile, opposite party committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Opposite party is liable to replace the mobile to the complainant.
In the above circumstances we allow the complaint. Opposite party is directed to replace the mobile with new one of the same model along with cost of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
If the opposite party is failed to replace the mobile within one month from the date of receipt of this order, complainant is entitled to realize cost of mobile phone Rs.1,800/- (Rupees One Thousand eight Hundred only) along with cost of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only) from the opposite party.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
On payment of the ordered amount, opposite party is at liberty to take back the mobile produced before the Forum.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of December 2016.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Cash receipt dated 28/01/2016 issued by opposite party
Ext.A2 – Warranty Card issued by opposite party
MO1 – Mobile Phone Samsung make
Cost
Rs.1,000/-allowed as cost of the proceedings.
