IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Wednesday the 31^th  day of January, 2018.

                                                Filed on 07/08/2017

Present

1.       Smt. Elizabeth George (President)

2.       Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)

3.       Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

in

CC/No.205/2017

Between

   Complainant:-                                                     Opposite Parties:-

  Ananda Krishnan.K.S                              1.           Motorola Solutions India Pvt.Ltd

  Kothakkattuveli,                                                     Motorola Excellence Center,

  Sivamayam House,                                                 415/2,Mehanli- Gurgaon Road,

  Cherthala.P.O.                                                        Sector 14,Near Maharana Pratapchowk

  Alappuzha.                                                             Gurugram, Haryana-122001.

2.           Prime Cell Mobile Servicing,

              Linda Treesa

              Vettukattil puthen Veedu

              Thathampally.P.O

              Alappuzha.

3.           Cellular World,

              Municipal Shopping Complex              Cherthala-688524.

ORDER

SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)

      The complainant’s case in precise is as follows:- 

The complainant on April 2017 purchased a MOTOROLA mobile from the third opposite party for an amount of Rs.15500/- (Rupees fifteen thousand five hundred only).Thereafter the `Head Set Jack’ of the phone went out of order, and the complainant approached the 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party. The complainant had to walk to and fro for 14 days, and at last the mother board of the gadget was replaced on the assurance that the `Head Set jack’ would function properly as the same is linked with the mother board. However the speaker of the phone thereafter got damaged and the complainant approached the opposite parties over again. The opposite parties assured the complainant that the phone would be patched up to perfection, and dismantle the gadget for repair. Upon this the phone developed different sort of defects and the same turned unusable. On being aggrieve on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.

2. Though notice was served, the opposite party was not keen on challenging the complainant’s case before this Forum.  Resultantly the opposite parties were set expartie.
3. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant and produced documents.  Material phone was produced as Mo1.  The opposite party adduced no evidence.
4. Taking into account the contentions of the parties, the issues that come up before us for consideration are:-

       (a) Whether the phone sold out by the opposite parties to the complainant has inherent manufacturing defect?

       (b) Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?

          (c)Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

The complainant’s specific case is that the complainant purchased a MOTOROLA mobile from the opposite parties for an amount of Rs.15500/-. However the `Head Set Jack’ of the phone got damaged and when the 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party was approached first of all the mother board of the gadget was replaced citing the reason that the `Head Set Jack’ is linked with the mother board. Thereafter the speaker of the phone went defective and the complainant approached the opposite parties over again. The opposite parties dismantled the gadget for repair only to turn the gadget unsuitable for use. On a perusal of the materials brought on record by the complainant it does appear that the complainant has a probable case. As we have already observed, the opposite parties have not made up their mind to pursue the case properly before this Forum or challenge the complainant’s otherwise probable case. The complainant case stands established by the documents and Mo1 produced more particularly so the complainant’s reliable testimony stands unchallenged by the opposite parties. We find no any particular reason to disbelieve the complainant’s all the more probable case. We are of the firm view that the opposite party apparently committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Viewing from any perspective the complainant is entitled to relief.

In the result, complaint allowed the opposite parties are directed to either refund to the complainant the cost of the mobile phone viz. An amount of Rs.15500/- (Rupees fifteen thousand five hundred only) or replace the material gadget with a similar brand new one. The opposite party is further directed to pay a cost amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.

Pronounced in open Forum on this 31^th day ofJanuary 2018.

                                                         Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :

                                                         Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):

                                                         Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D.  (Member) : .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

Ext.A1        -        Service record

Ext.A2        -        Retail Invoice

Mo1            -        Mobile phone

Evidence of the opposite parties :- Nil

// True Copy //

                                                                                             By  Order                                                                                                  To                                                                                  Senior Superintendent

         Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.

Typed by:- Sa/- 

Compared by:-