IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2011.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
C.C.No.72/11 (Filed on 14.03.2011)
Between:
Smt. Vidhya Dileep,
System Administrator,
‘FRIENDS’ Janasevanakendram,
Pathanamthitta. ..... Complainant
And:
Manager/Proprietor,
Mobile Store,
Central Junction,
Pathanamthitta. ..... Opposite party
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that she had purchased a Micromax X226 mobile phone for ` 1,969 from the opposite party on 28.2.11. At the time of purchase, the opposite party offered 6 months warranty for the products. However on the 4th day of its purchase, the charger supplied along with the mobile phone became defective. Since the warranty is in force, the complainant approached the opposite party for replacing the defective charger. Then the opposite party directed the complainant to a nearby service centre saying that they will replace the defective charger. Accordingly, she approached the said service centre and asked them to replace the charger as directed by the opposite party. But they have not honoured the complainant’s demand. So she returned to the opposite party and told about this. Then the opposite party told the complainant that she has to go to the main service centre at Kottayam for getting her charger replaced. Kottayam is 70 Kms. away from Pathanamthitta and complainant being a lady she is not able to go to Kottayam for the said purpose. So she asked the opposite party to redress her grievances. But the opposite party is not prepared to redress the grievances of the complainant. By this time the phone also become defective due to non-charging. The above said act of the opposite party is a deficiency in service, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Hence, this complaint for the realisation of ` 3,000 from the opposite party as the compensation of the aforesaid deficiency in service.
3. In this case, the opposite party did not appeared or filed his version though he received the notice of this Forum. Hence he was declared as exparte.
4. The only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The complainant’s evidence consists of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Ext.A1. After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.
6. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation against the opposite party is that the mobile phone charger purchased along with the mobile phone from the opposite party became defective during its warranty period. But the opposite party denied to replace the mobile charger. Instead of redressing the grievances of the complainant, opposite party directed her to approach different service centres, who also denied the complainant’s request. The mobile phone also became defective as it could not charged due to the defect of the charger. The above said act of the opposite party is a deficiency of service and the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same.
7. In order to prove the complainant’s allegations, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and she had produced the photocopy of the bill dated 28.2.11 for ` 1,969 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant for the purchase of the mobile phone.
8. Opposite party is exparte.
9. On a perusal of the available evidence, it is found that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone on 28.2.11 from the opposite party. According to the complainant, the mobile charger supplied along with the mobile phone became defective after 4 days from the purchase and on the strength of the warranty, the complainant approached the opposite party for the replacement of the charger. But the opposite party denied the complainant’s demand. Since the mobile charger is not replaced, the complainant was not able to charge the mobile phone. Therefore, the mobile phone also became defective. Thereby the complainant sustained monitory loss and mental agony. The opposite party responsible and liable to the complainant for the same. Since the opposite party is exparte, the complainant’s allegation against the opposite party stands proved as unchallenged. Opposite party being the person who received the price of the mobile phone, he had an obligation to the complainant. But he did not discharged his obligation. The act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service. Therefore, this complaint is allowable.
10. In the result, the complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of ` 3,000 (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the complainant is allowed to realise the whole amount along with the interest at the rate of 12% from today till the realisation of the whole amount. The complainant is also directed to return the mobile phone and its accessories to the opposite party on receipt of the amount from the opposite party as ordered by this Forum.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of June, 2011.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Vidya Dileep
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of the bill dated 28.2.11 issued by the opposite
party to the complainant
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
(By Order)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Smt. Vidhya Dileep, System Administrator,
‘FRIENDS’ Janasevanakendram, Pathanamthitta. (2) Manager/Proprietor, Mobile Store,
Central Junction, Pathanamthitta.
(3) The Stock File.
