1. BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 24.07.2015

Date of Order : 10.12.2015

Present :-

Shri. Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No.494/2015

Between

And

O R D E R

V,K. Beena Kumari, Member

A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as follows :

This consumer complaint is filed by Shri Abin Paul residing at Thozhuthumkudy House, Pallikkara in Ernakulam District. The complainant purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the 1^st opposite party M/s. Micromax mobiles, Gurgaon and sold by the 2^nd opposite party Arjay Associates. On 17.06.2015 at about 9 a.m. the mobile phone burst with a loud voice without any reason. It was kept on the table top and many valuable documents/files, purse, clothes kept on the table etc. were burnt in the fire that broke out consequent to the bursting of the mobile phone, causing loss to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The damaged mobile phone was handed over to the authorised service centre of the 1^st opposite party manufacturer, M/s. Arjay Associates as directed by the 1^st opposite party manufacturer over telephone and the complainant requested for replacement of the damaged mobile phone. The complainant also approached the service centre many a times for getting a new mobile phone but he was not supplied with a new mobile phone. However on 14.07.2015 the 2^nd opposite party service centre informed the complainant that they are not empowered to provide the complainant with a new phone since they are only service centre of the 1^st opportunity manufacturer and directed the complainant to contact the 1^st opportunity manufacturer for getting replacement of the damaged phone with a new one. It is contended by the complainant that he contacted the 1^st opposite party manufacturer but could not get the 1^st opposite party in the number provided to the complainant. In the circumstances the complainant filed this consumer complaint seeking directions from this Forum to the opposite parties to replace the damaged mobile phone with a new one and to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation for the loss occurred to the complainant and for the inconvenience and mental agony suffered by the complainant along with costs of proceedings.

2. Notices were issued to both the opposite parties and 1^st opposite party was 'intimated' by the postal authorities. Deemed service effected on the 1^st opposite party but they remained absent subsequently. The 2^nd opposite party service centre M/s Arjay Associates was served with the notice in the month of August, 2015 but 1^st opposite party remained absent through out the proceedings in this Forum. Thus both the opposite parties were set exparte and this complaint is disposed of exparte after hearing the complainant who appeared before this Forum in person.

3. From the pleadings of the complainant the following issues emanated for the consideration of this Forum.

1. Whether the complainant has proved manufacturing

   defect or deficiency in service on the part of the

   Opposite parties ?

2. If so whether the complainant is entitled to get

   replacement of the damaged mobile phone with a

   brandnew one ?

3. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay

   Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the alleged

   loss occurred to the complainant along with costs

   of this proceedings.

    

4. The evidence in this case consisted of the documentary evidences furnished by the complainant marked as Exts. A1 to A5 and the exparte proof affidavit filed by the complainant. No evidence whatsoever furnished by the opposite parties. The opposite parties were absent through out the proceedings in this Forum.

5. Issue Nos. (i) and (ii) :

It is contended by the complainant that he had purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the 1^st opposite party M/s. Micromax Mobiles and the said mobile phone, which was kept on the table top, exploded on 17.06.2015 at 9 a.m. without any reason and in the fire that occurred consequent to the explosion, many valuable documents kept on the table top and some kids wears, the money purse of the complainant etc. were set ablaze, causing loss to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The complainant argued that the mobile phone exploded only due to its inherent manufacturing defects. On the very same day the damaged mobile phone was entrusted with the 2^nd opposite party M/s. Arjay Associates who are the authorised service centre of the 1^st opposite party manufacturer evidenced by Ext. A1 job sheet of the 2^nd opposite party dated 17.06.20115 and demanded replacement of the mobile phone with a new one. But the defect noted in the above job sheet was that “the power does not switch on. But it is evident from the copy of the Ext. A2 copy of the photograph of the damaged mobile phone that the mobile phone was damaged in fire consequent to the explosion of the same on 17.06.2015. The above incident was reported in the news-papers as evidenced by Exts. A3, A4 and A5 photo copies of the relevant news-paper cuttings. Ext. A5 news report in Mangalam Daily dated 16^th July, 2015 would go to show that the subject mobile phone was purchased 2 ½ years back and the value of the mobile phone is Rs. 13,500/-. The paper publication cannot be taken as sufficient evidence to entitle the complainant to get replacement of the damaged mobile phone with a new one and we find that the complainant is not entitled to get replacement of the damaged mobile phone with a new one in the absence of the relevant purchase bill of the subject mobile phone. Thus the issue No. (ii) us decided against the complainant.

6. Issue No. (iii) :

The issue remains to be decided is whether the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation for the alleged loss occurred to him consequent to the explosion of the mobile phone which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party M/s. Micromax mobiles. The complainant proved that he was in possession of a Micromax mobile phone and the said mobile phone was damaged on 17.06.2015 and the damaged mobile phone was handed over to the 2^nd opposite party authorised service centre of the 1^st opposite party manufacturer as evidenced by Ext. A1 job sheet dated 17.06.2015 issued by the 2^nd opposite party. The Ext. A2 photo copy of the photograph of the damaged mobile phone would go to show that the subject mobile phone was completely caught fire and damaged in the explosion and it is beyond repair. In the above circumstances we find that the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the damages sustained and proved by the complainant. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has not produced any documents or photographs to prove the extent damages caused to the valuable documents, kids wear kept on the table top and to the table in the fire occurred consequent to the explosion of the subject mobile phone except the evidence by way of exparte proof affidavit solemnly affirmed. Considering the above, we find that it is only just and proper to fix the amount of compensation including costs of proceedings at Rs. 15,000/-, It is ordered accordingly.

7. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and we issue the following orders :

1. The request of the complainant to replace the

damaged mobile phone with a brand new one

is disallowed in the absence of the relevant

purchase bill.

2. The 1^st opposite party shall pay an amount of

Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation for the

injuries sustained by her and costs of

proceedings to the complainant within one

month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

Order.

If the above Order is not complied within the above said period, the amount of Rs. 15,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of filing this complaint i.e. from 24.07.2015 till realization.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of December 2015.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member. Sd/- Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Forwarded / By Order

Senior Superintendent

Date of Despatch of the Order :

By Hand / By Post :

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :- Nil