THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C. 562/2015
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2016
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB : Member
ORDER
By: Rose Jose, President:
This petition is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The case of the petitioner is that, he had purchased a Micro Max A 350 mobile on 26/11/2014 for Rs.14,300/-. The 1st opposite party is the authorized service centre and the 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the mobile phone. After 8 months of purchase the mobile became defective and stop functioning, as it has lost its capacity to take charge. Besides this, back body has also broken. So he has approached the authorized Ridham service centre and entrusted the mobile with them for rectification of the defects. 1st opposite party informed that he will not get the warranty benefit and they add that specific part is not available. The petitioner contended that he has purchased the mobile only on 26/11/2014 and it became functionless due to defect in the charging strip and the company has informed that they have no stock of charging strip to rectify the defect of the mobile. Even though the mobile is in the warranty period and petitioner was ready to pay the cost of charging strip, opposite party could not rectify the defect or replace the defective charging strip with a new one due to the lack in the stock of the same. Even after repeated demands and requests opposite party did not hand over the rectified mobile to the complainant. It is further submitted that the mobile is very essential for his job and the non-functioning of the mobile cause much mental agony and also very loss to his job. The opposite parties are liable to rectify the defect by replacing the defective charging strip with a new one and the denial and lack of charging strip within the warranty period of the mobiles amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their side. Hence this petition is filed for getting an order directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile of Rs.14,300/- with compensation of Rs.1,000/- for his sufferings, mental agony and other travelling expenses.
On receiving this petition Forum sent notice to both parties.After receiving notice opposite parties did not turn up or filed any version. Hence they set ex-parte.
The petitioner filed affidavit and documents 2 in numbers which were marked as Ext. A1 and A2 as evidence on his side. Ext. A1 is the copy of retail invoice dated 26/11/2014 for an amount of Rs.14,300/-. Ext. A2 is the job sheet dated 26/09/2015. Ext.s A1 and A2 proves that the complainant has purchased one mobile from the opposite parties and it became defective within the warranty period itself and now it is entrusted with the opposite party No. 1. Even though the mobile is within the custody of opposite party No. 1, they didn’t appear before this Forum or adduced any evidence to rebut the allegations of the petitioner.
Considering the facts of the case stated above and relying on the evidence adduced by the petitioner, we are of the view that the said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
In the result, the following order is passed. The 2nd opposite party is ordered to refund the price of the mobile of Rs.14,300/- (Rupees fourteen thousand three hundred only) and a compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for his mental agony and sufferings and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the petitioner.
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2016.
Date of filing: 04/11/2015
SD/-MEMBER SD/- PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Copy of retail invoice dated 26/11/2014
A2. Copy of Costumer Job card
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
None
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
