By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:-
Brief of the complaint:- The complainant purchased a mobile phone on 21.11.2008 manufactured by opposite party No.2. On 24.07.2010 the handset went out of order and handed over to opposite party No.1 the authorized service center for repair. Thereafter complainant contacted several times to the opposite party No.1 to get back the repaired handset. To these enquiries opposite party No.1 replied that they will intimate after completion of repair. But opposite party No.1 not intimated anything to the complainant, so he sent a registered letter on 13.09.2010 requesting to return the handset. But opposite party No.1 not responded to it. Again the complainant contacted several times in person and requested to return the handset. Finally on 03.10.2011 complainant knew that the handset was lost from the service center. Then the complainant requested to replace the handset with a new one but opposite party denied it by stating that they have no responsibility for this. Then the matter was reported to opposite party No.2 over phone on the same day, they also denied the responsibility. The complainant alleges that both the opposite parties were not prepared to return the handset or to replace it with a new one. So there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence filed this complaint.
2. Notices served to opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 present and filed version. Subsequently complainant filed an I.A No.165/2012 to implead opposite party No.3 the manufacturer. Notice issued to opposite party No.2 and 3 but that was returned. Then on 26.02.2013 complainant's counsel filed a memo stating that “He is not intented to proceed the case against opposite party No.2 and 3”. Hence proceed with the case against opposite party No.1.
3. The Opposite party No.1 filed version in short it is as follows:- This opposite party admitted that the complainant had entrusted his mobile phone with them for repair. The panel board of the set was damaged and hence the board has to be replaced which may incure heavy expenses. The expenses to that should have been born by the complainant himself since the set was out of warranty and this matter was communicated to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant has not approached to this opposite party and the opposite party contacted the complainant over telephone on 24.07.2010, 26.07.2010, 02.08.2010 and 17.08.2010. Later on 21.08.2010 the shop of the opposite party has been broken by some thiefs and the items kept there in were stolen including the handset of the complainant. This matter was communicated to the complainant. This opposite party offered the same type of set entrusted by the complainant. But the complainant was very adamant and he demanded the same phone or exorbitant amount. Opposite party stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. This opposite party can nothing to do with the loss of the mobile phone due to theft. He also sustained huge loss on that account. Again opposite party stated that it is not at all true that the complainant has approached this opposite party several times, also such allegations are made only for the purpose of this complaint. Hence he prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. On considering the complaint, documents and version the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- The evidence in this case consist of chief affidavit of complainant, opposite party, Exts.A1 to A3 and Ext.B1 document. Complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 documents were marked. Ext.B1 is marked from the side of opposite party No.1. Ext.A1 is the Box of the phone. Ext.A2 is the Receipt(Job card) dated 24.07.2010 issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant. Ext.A3 is the Registered letter sent to opposite party No.1 by the complainant with Acknowledgment Card and Postal Receipt. Ext.B1 is the carbon copy of Job card. On perusal of the evidence and the documents produced before us it is admitted that the subject matter in issue the old mobile phone which has been stolen from opposite party No.1's shop, which was in “dead condition”. Complainant stated that so many occasions he approached the opposite party to get back the repaired mobile phone, due to the latches of opposite party he could not get it back after repair. Subsequently which has stolen from the custody of opposite party No.1. But in the version opposite party denied all these allegations. The set was an old one and out of warranty, more than that which was in dead condition. Moreover opposite party No.1 contacted several occasions over phone but no evidence is produced by opposite party No.1 to substantiate this. Both the parties admitted the theft and which was caused from the custody of opposite party No.1. So the opposite party No.1 is liable to compensate the complainant. But from Ext.A3 it is clear that complainant sent a registered letter to opposite party on 15.11.2012 but opposite party No.1 not responded to it. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.2. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- The Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant, hence the complainant is entitled to get relief from the opposite party No.1. The Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) only as cost of the old mobile phone and also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only as cost of this proceedings to the complainant. This Order must be complied by the opposite party No.1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 7th day of May 2014.
Date of Filing:23.03.2012.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Sudhakaran. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Jiboy Zacharia. Owner cum Manager, Samsung Service
Centre, Kalpetta.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Box of the Samsung Mobile Phone.
A2. Job Card. Dt:24.07.2010.
A3. Registered Letter, Postal Receipt and Acknowledgment.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:
B1. Carbon copy of Job Card. Dt:24.07.2010.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
