PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

                       Dated this the 28^th day of December 2011

                                                                                 Filed on : 10/08/2011

Present :

          Shri. A  Rajesh,                                                     President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.                                   Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma,                                           Member

C.C. No. 434/2011

     Between

K.A. Ashlin                                      :         Complainant

Kurisunkal house,                                      (party-in-person)

Nambrath,

Kochi, 682 002.

                                                And

 1. Mobile  Sone,                             :         Opposite parties

     Penta Menaka,                                     (1^st O.P. Absent)

     Ernakulam,

     Kochi-682 031.

2.  Ranni Enterprises,                       (2^nd O.P.By Adv. T.S. Rajan, 

     F-15, 1^st Floor,                                P.H.E. Road, Cochin-18)

     Island Casile,                                                

     Opp. YMCA,

     Chittoor road, Kochi.

                                          O R D E R

C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

          Facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:

          The  complainant purchased a mobile phone B-430 fly on 30/09/2010 from the 1^st opposite party.  The warranty has been provided for one year.  After 7 months from its purchase the gadget became defunct.  On 16-06-2011 the product was entrusted with the 2^nd opposite party for repairing.  It was informed that they sent it to their Chennai centre for repairing.  After two months on repeated enquiries they informed  that they are ready to repair the same provided  the complainant  meets half  the repairing charge.  Then  the complainant approaches this Forum  seeking direction against the opposite parties.

          to rectify the defects of the handset under dispute with  six months warranty and to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant.

          2. The complainant appeared in person.  The 1st opposite party remained  absent.  Initially the 2^nd opposite party appeared through counsel, thereafter they abstained from the proceedings.  The complainant adduced only documentary evidence.  Exts. A1 and A2 were marked. Thereafter we have heard the  complainant.

          3. The points that arose for determination are as follows:

          i. whether the complainant is entitled to get his handset repaired  with  fresh warranty from the opposite parties?

          ii. Compensation if any

          4. Points Nos.i&ii.  Ext. A1 copy of bill shows that the complainant purchased the disputed handset from the 1^st opposite party on 30/09/2010.  Ext. A2 is the copy of job sheet dated 16-06-2011.  The said would show  that within one year from the date of purchase the gadget became defunct and the same was entrusted with the 2nd opposite party for repairing.   The relief sought for against the opposite parties  is to rectify the defects of the mobile phone and to provide fresh warranty and compensation from the opposite party.  No contrary evidence is before us to disbelieve the complainant.   As per the evidence the mobile set is with the 2^nd opposite party.  Admittedly the defects were occurred  within 7 months from  the date of purchase, i.e. within the warranty period.  Since the handset is in the warranty period the 2^nd opposite party is contractually liable to rectify the defect and  the complainant is entitled to get the handset repaired free of cost.  More over,   the 1^st opposite party the dealer is bound to give additional warranty to the product since the  privity of contract is between the manufacturer and the dealer.  Secondly the gadget was entrusted with the 2^nd opposite party for its repair on 16/06/2011 but the 2^nd opposite party did not rectify the defects.  During this period the complainant was deprived  of enjoying the benefits out the disputed product for which the opposite parties are answerable.  Hence the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the  deficiency in service on their part. We fix the compensation at Rs. 2,000/-.

          5. Accordingly we allow the complaint as follows:

          i. The 2^nd opposite party shall forthwith rectify the defects of the mobile handset on free of cost and return  the same to the complainant

          ii.  the 1^st opposite party shall  provide further 6 months warranty to the handset  from the date of  delivery of the same.

          ii. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 2,000/- towards  compensation to the complainant.

          The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the above amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a.  till realization.

            Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28^th day of December 2011.

                                                          Sd/-C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

                                               Sd/- A  Rajesh, President.

                                                          Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member. 

                                                          Forwarded/By Order,

                                                          Senior Superintendent.