O R D E R Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member. The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant purchased a NOKIA – E – 71 Model Mobile Phone with IMIE No. 354855025635151 on 9..2..2009 on payment of Rs. 20,550/- to the second opposite party, the authorized dealer of the first opposite party manufacturer. The opposite parties had offered a warranty for a period of one year. Within 35 days of its purchase the phone ceased to have access to any of the network and became useless. The complainant entrusted the said phone to the authorized service centre. After 16 days the service centre handed over another phone of the same model to the complainant and informed him that they had sent the defective phone to New Delhi. But the mobile phone given instead of the complainant’s phone also showed the same defect. The complainant stated that he -2- opted the said mobile phone believing the reputation of the opposite parties and the assurances given by the opposite parties regarding the long lasting quality, warranty and services. The complainant alleged that the phone ceased working due to the defect in workman ship or materials used for manufacturing. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming refund of purchase price with 18% interest, compensation Rs. 5000/- and cost Rs. 200/-. Notice was served to first and second opposite parties. First opposite party called absent hence set ex-parte. Second opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions. The second opposite party contented that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of cause of action and mis-joinder of the second opposite party. The second opposite party further contented that the complainant never informed them that the hand set became faulty after 35 days from the date of purchase. It was again contented by the second opposite party that the averments of the complainant regarding the defects in work man ship or materials used for the manufacturing and financial loss are absolutely false. Hence the second opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost to them. Points for considerations are: i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties? ii) Reliefs and cost? Evidence consists of affidavits filed by the complainant and second opposite party and exhibits A1 to A 6 series. Point No. 1 Heard the arguments of the counsels for the complainant and second opposite party and perused the exhibits. The original retail invoice is produced and marked as exhibit A1. As per exhibit A1, the Nokia mobile was purchased on 9..2..2009 for a price of Rs. 20,550/-. The original job sheet vide No.421465550/090528/44 is produced and marked as exhibit A3. From exhibit A3, it is understood that the original Nokia set was entrusted to L.M Services and an exchange unit was supplied to the complainant on -3- 30..5..2009. From exhibits A1 & A3 it is clear that the mobile phone was taken to the service centre within 4 months of its purchase and an exchange unit was given instead of the original set. The complainant averred that the exchange mobile given to him also showed the same defect. The complainant issued a lawyers notice dtd: 27..07..2009 to the opposite parties. Office copy of the said notice is produced and marked as exhibit A4. It is significant to note that both the opposite parties had not responded to the said notice. Admittedly the defects of the mobile phone are noticed during warranty period. A consumer who purchases mobile phone for such a huge price of Rs. 20,550/- will not be satisfied if it becomes defective within 4 months of its purchase. The second opposite party counter averred that he is only a dealer and the warranty is offered by the first opposite party, manufacturer. In our view both the manufacturer and its dealer are the necessary parties to the sale of a product and there fore the dealer cannot evade from responsibility of the defects of the product accusing that the manufacturer alone is responsible for all the defects. In this instant case due to the inaction of the first and second opposite parties, the complainant was forced to approach the Forum for the redressal of his grievance. Even after spending Rs. 20,550/- for a mobile, the complainant is destined for the non use of the said mobile. In our opinion, what had happened would have definitely caused mental agony, monitory loss and loss of use of mobile phone to the complainant. Hence we hold both the opposite parties deficient in service. Point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the findings in point No. 1 the petition is allowed. In the result, the petition is ordered as follows: The first and second opposite parties will jointly and severally refund Rs. 20,550/- to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs. 2000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 1000/-. If the defective mobile or the exchange unit supplied by the service centre is still with the petitioner the concerned opposite party can take back it at the time of refunding the purchase price . -4- This order will be complied with within 1 month of receipt this order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% from the date of the expiry of the period of one month till the date of actual payment. Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavnath P., President Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents of the complainant Ext. A1: Original bill Dtd: 4..2..2009 Ext. A2: Copy of warranty card Ext. A3: Original replacement note Ext. A4: Office copy of notice dt: 27..7..2009 Ext. A5series Postal receipts Nos. 2 Ext. A6series Acknowledgement cards Nos. 2. Documents of the opposite party Nil. By Order, Senior Superintendent
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
