Kerala

Wayanad

CC/199/2013

N.A.PraveenKumar,Sharath Bhavan,Ambalamoola PO, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager/Proprietor,3G Mobile World,Kanhirandy Building, - Opp.Party(s)

29 Nov 2014

ORDER

By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:-

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 for an Order directing the opposite parties to return the price of the defective mobile phone with cost and compensation.

2. Brief of the complaint:- On 02.02.2013 the complainant purchased a Nokia Asha Mobile phone worth Rs.4,100/- from opposite party No.1. On August 2013 it became defective. Then the complainant entrusted the mobile phone to opposite party No.1's shop and

opposite party No.1 rectified the defect and returned the set on the next day. Again the mobile phone became defective and the complainant entrusted the mobile phone to 2^nd opposite party shop as per the advice of opposite party No.1. But after few days opposite party No.2 returned the mobile phone to this complainant stating that the handset was opened by some other person before the complainant entrusted it to the service center. So they were not in a position to repair the set. Complainant alleges that the non repair of the mobile phone during the warranty period is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence filed this complaint to get back the price of this mobile phone with compensation.

 

3. Opposite party No.1 appeared and filed version. The purchase of the mobile phone is admitted by this opposite party but all other allegations regarding the service is denied by this opposite party. According to them the allegation raised by the complainant are baseless and false. They further stated that they are only a retail outlet of Nokia Mobile phones and they advised the complainant to approach the opposite party No.2 for rectification. So they are not liable to refund the cost of handset and to pay the compensation as alleged by the complainant.

4. Opposite party No.2 filed version in short is as follows:- According to 2^nd opposite party there is no merit in the complaint. They will not entertain any complaint without issuing job sheet to the concerned consumers. If the complainant had entrusted any defective mobile phone with this opposite party definitely there will be a job sheet stating the nature of the complaint and other details of the entrusted mobile phone. And as per the records maintained by this opposite party, they were not received any set from the complainant, so they were not liable to pay any relief as claimed in this petition.

 

 

5. On considering the complaint, affidavit and versions the following points are to be considered:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. Relief and Cost.

6. Point No.1:- Complainant filed chief affidavit and examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 and MO1 is marked. Ext.A1 is the purchase bill given by opposite party No.1 to the complainant. On perusal of this document it is clear that on 02.02.2013 complainant purchased the mobile phone from opposite party No.1. So the alleged defects was in the month of August 2013 that the cause of action arouse within the warranty period. Complainant not produced any job sheet showing the details of defect. Opposite Party No.1 also filed chief affidavit and examined as OPW1 but in the witness box opposite party No.2 denied the repair and service of the mobile phone as alleged in the complaint. 1^st opposite party Further stated that he was not aware of the fact that whether the complainant entrusted the mobile phone to opposite party No.2 or not. Opposite party No.2 also denied all the allegations in the complaint but complainant produced the defective mobile phone before the Forum. On verification Forum found that the mobile phone was not in working condition. On considering the complaint, affidavit by both parties and evidences advanced before us Forum found that there is some defect in this mobile phone and the complaint occurred within the warranty period. So we are in the opinion that non repair of the defective mobile phone within warranty period is both deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. So the complainant is entitled to get the cost and compensation. The Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

 

 

7. Point No.2:- Since the point No.1 is found against the opposite parties, the complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation. The Point No.2 is found accordingly.

 

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.2 is directed to return the price of the mobile phone ie Rs.4,100/- (Rupees Four Thousand and One Hundred Only) to the complainant. The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three
Thousand Only) as cost and compensation to the complainant. The complainant is directed to

return the MO 1 to the opposite party No.1. This Order must be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest thereafter for the whole amount.

 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of November 2014.

Date of Filing:13.09.2013.

 

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

 

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

 

 

 

APPENDIX.

 

Witness for the complainant:

 

PW1. Praveenkumar. Complainant.

 

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

 

OPW1. Sheneef. P Accountant, 3G Mobile World, Kalpetta.

 

OPW2. Sudheesh. Assistant Manager, Nokia Care, Kalpetta.

 

Exhibits for the complainant:

 

A1. Retail Invoice. Dt:02.02.2013.

MO1. Mobile Phone.

 

 

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

 

Nil.

 

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.