IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 179/2015
Wednesday, the 25th day of November, 2015
Petitioners : Punnen I Punnen,
S/o. Punnen, Edayanjali,
Malloossery P.O.
Kottayam - 686 041.
(Adv. Joji John)
Vs.
Opposite Party : 1)Microsoft Corporation India Pvt Ltd.
Business Communication Centre,
Chiramel Chambers,
Kurishupally Road,
Ravipuram, Kochi – 682 015.
2) The Proprietor,
Valavi Mobile Zone,
TB Road, Kottayam, Pin – 686 001.
3) The Manager,
Nokia Care,
Kochuparangottu Building,
TB Road, Kottayam – 686 001.
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
The case of the complainant is as follows.
He had purchased a Nokia mobile with No.106 on 4th January 2014 from the 2nd opposite party for an amount of Rs.1400/-, the mobile had set was with one year warranty. On 20/06/2015, the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party, the authorised service center of the 1st opposite party for rectifying the defects of the Handset. The defect was that the mobile phone was in a dead condition. The 3rd opposite party took the phone to rectify the defects, but was informed at the same moment that the model phone was discontinued by the 1st opposite party and was informed that they cannot repair the mobile on the terms of warranty. It was also informed by the 3rd opposite party that if the mobile is to be repaired without warranty, complainant have to spend an amount more than its price. The 1st opposite party being the manufacturer of the mobile have all responsibility to provide warranty service to the complainant. The 3rd opposite party is strictly liable to provide free service for the mobile as it is within the warranty period though the said mobile model is discontinued by the 1st opposite party. If a discontinued model of mobile phone is not having free service within the warranty period, 2nd opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant as the 2nd opposite party made believe the complainant that the phone comes with a warranty of one year at the time of purchase. The act of the opposite parties in not providing free service to the complainant’s mobile, which is within the warranty period amounts to imperfection in the quality or standard required to be maintained by the contract and law for the time being in force and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
The notices were served with the opposite parties. They did not appear either in person or through their counsel even after accepting the notice from this Forum.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and one document, which is marked as Ext.A1.
Heard complainant. The case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties even after accepting the notice from this Forum. So we have no reasons to dis-believe the case of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result, the complaint is allowed as follows.
We direct the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile hand set ie. Rs.1,400/- to the complainant and pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of these proceedings. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.
The Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. If not complied, the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of Order till payment.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of November, 2015
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1 : Invoice No. 712 dtd.04/07/2014 from 2nd opposite party
Documents of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
