BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 06.11.2014

Date of Order : 16.02.2016

Present :-

Shri. Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 828/2014

Between

And

O R D E R

Sheen Jose, Member

The case of the complaint is as follows :

The complainant was working as Chief Finance Officer in a private firm at Ernakulam. He purchased a mobile handset model No. X 335C from M/s. Univer Cell, Cochin Branch on 26.06.20133 which was manufactured by 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party is the authorised service agent of the 1^st opposite party. After one week, the handset became useless due to touch screen being non responsive. Thereafter the complainant approached the second opposite party, on 25.07.2013 the 2^nd opposite party accepted the mobile handset for repair and acknowledged the receipt of the same and issued a Material Received Note dated 25.07.2013 to the complainant.

2. As per the instruction of the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant personally approached them after 15 days, but there was no response. The mobile handset was not handed over after repair. Thereafter the complainant had sent e-mail and registered notice to the opposite parties. Unfortunately there was no response from the opposite parties. The complainant could not use the mobile handset as it was not properly working due to touch screen being non responsive. It is due to the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and therefore the complainant was constrained to take action to get the compensation.

3. The first opposite party misrepresented that the mobile handset was suitable for daily use and 2^nd opposite party is falsely represented and offered that the mobile handset would be returned back after repair within 15 days. Both opposite parties did not even care respond to the registered notice issued by the complainant. It is contended that the opposite parties are adopting unfair trade practice for sale and after sale service. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile phone and to pay compensation of Rs. 10000/- and costs of the proceedings. Hence this complaint.

4. Inspite of service of notice from this Forum, the opposite parties opted to remain absent during the proceedings for their own reason. Exparte proof affidavit has been filed by the complainant. Exhibits A1 to A3 were marked on his side. Heard the complainant who appeared in person.

5. The issues that came up for consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund

   of the price of mobile handset model No. X 335C ?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compe-

   nsation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant ?

    

6. Issue No. (i) : Exhibit A2 goes to show that the complainant purchased a mobile handset from M/s. Univer Cell Telecommunications India Private Limited on 26.06.2013, which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party, for Rs.2,150/-. According to the complainant, the handset became defective within one week from the date of purchase. He had to approach the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorised service agent of 1^st opposite party to rectify the defects of the mobile handset. Evidently Ext. A1 job sheet would go to show that complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party on 25.07.2013 and also it is noted that “ Touch not working, SIM and MMC Not Taken “. However it is true that the mobile handset is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect and opposite parties failed to rectify the same and the handset is still within their custody. The above act of the opposite parties is clear case of deficiency in service. Nothing is on record to disbelieve the contentions raised by the complainant, especially when the complainant caused to issue Ext. A3 registered notice highlighting his grievances. In that case the opposite parties are legally liable to refund the price of the mobile handset, since the gadget suffered inherent manufacturing defects. According to the Hon'ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission a frustrated consumer is entitled to get refund of the price of the defective gadget (Sony Ericsson India Limited v. Ashish Aggarwal) IV 2007 CPJ 294 (NC). Resultantly we find that the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the mobile handset from the opposite parties together with interest.

7. Issue No. (ii) : The opposite parties miserably failed to attend and rectify the defects of the handset and did not return the same till date. It is also tobe noted that the opposite parties not only responded to Ext. A3 notice, but also to the notice issued from this Forum, we are of the firm view that the above act of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service. Compensation and costs of the proceedings are called for. We award Rs. 2000/- towards the same.

In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:-

i) The opposite party shall refund Rs. 2150/- together with

interest @ 12% from the date of payment till realisation

of the complainant being the price of the mobile handset.

ii) The opposite party shall also pay Rs. 1500/- to the

complainant towards compensation and costs of the

proceedings. Their liability will be partly and severally.

The above orders shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 16^th day of February. 2016.

Sd/- Sheen Jose , Member

Sd/- Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member

Forwarded / By Order

Senior Superintendent

Date of despatch of the Order :

By Hand / By Post :

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :- Nil