BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 18/08/2011

Date of Order : 29/10/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 453/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

1. Brief facts of the complainant's case are as follows :

On 06-03-2011, the complainant purchased a mobile phone (LG GX-300) from the 2^nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. One year warranty has been provided by the 1^st opposite party. While so, the hand set became defunct on 03-05-2011 and the defect has been rectified by the 1^st opposite party's service centre. Again on 20-05-2011 and 16-06-2011, the complaint repeated and was rectified by the 1^st opposite party's technicians. But the defect is still persisting. Hence this complaint. The complainant approaches this Forum seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the price of the gadget under dispute and compensation.

2. Version of the 2^nd opposite party :

The 2^nd opposite party is the dealer of the 1^st opposite party. No dispute with regard to the purchase of the handset under dispute. The warranty has been provided by the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party being the manufacturer they are liable to replace or refund. But there is no specific complaint against them. If there is any defect, the 2^nd opposite party is ready to issue a recommendation letter to the 1^st opposite party for replacement of the mobile phone

3. The complainant appeared in person. The 1^st opposite party remained absent even after the receipt of notice from this Forum. The 2^nd opposite party appeared through counsel. They did not adduce any evidence. The complainant adduced only documentary evidence. Exts. A1 to A4 were marked. Thereafter, we have heard both parties.

4. The points for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the gadget in dispute or not?

2. Compensation and costs, if any?

5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- Ext. A1 is the tax invoice dated 06-03-2011 of the handset under dispute. This is the evidence for transaction. Ext. A2, Ext. A3 and Ext. A9 are the Job sheets dated 16-06-2011, 20-05-2011 and 04-05-2011 respectively. Those job sheets go to show that the complainant entrusted his handset with the service centre on various occasions. It appears that within a short span of time, the gadget became defective. The recurring defects of the gadget before and after the warranty period go to show that the same suffers from manufacturing defect. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the handset in question with a new one from the 1^st opposite party. Since the defect has been occurred during the warranty period. The warranty has been provided by the 1^st opposite party. Therefore, the liability is vested upon them. Being the dealer the 2^nd opposite party has no liability to refund or replacement. Hence, they are exonerated from any liability. Moreover, the complainant is also entitled to get costs of the proceedings from the 1^st opposite party.

6. Therefore, we allow the complaint as follows :

1. The 1^st opposite party shall replace the mobile phone in question with a new piece of the same description and price according to the choice of the complainant with fresh warranty.

2. The 1^st opposite party shall also pay Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of October 2011.

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member. Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========