By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an Order directing the opposite parties to return Rs.7,600/- being the cost of the handset paid by the complainant with interest at 18% per annum till realization and to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation and to pay Rs.1,500/- as cost of the proceedings.

2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy Core-2 mobile set from the 1^st opposite party on 04.05.2015 paying Rs.7,600/- as per the representation of 1^st opposite party. Within a few days, the mobile set started showing signs of defects. On 18.05.2015, the handset suddenly got switched off. The complainant immediately approached the 1^st opposite party and complained about it. The 1^st opposite party adviced the complainant to approach 2^nd opposite party after checking. The complainant gave the set to 2^nd opposite party for service. The 2^nd opposite party after checking gave back the set to the complainant. But again the same defect appears after one week. On 26.05.2015, the complainant again approached opposite party No.2 and gave handset and 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that the set is to be sent to Calicut Authorized Service Centre and informed that it will take at least 30 days to complete the service. After several enquiry, at last the 2^nd opposite party gave back the set to the complainant stating that the motherboard of the set is to be replaced. The defect was only due to manufacturing defect and it cannot be rectified. The act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Hence the complaint.

3. On receipt of complaint, Notices were issued to opposite parties and they appeared before the Forum and sought time for version. Opposite party No.1 field version but opposite parties No.2 and 3 did not file version and they were set ex-parte. In the version, opposite party No.1 stated that they are only a sales point and the 2^nd opposite party is the service centre and 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer. If there is any manufacturing defect to the mobile set, opposite party No.2 and 3 are answerable. The opposite party No.1 gave proper bill and warranty card to the complainant. The opposite party No.1 admitted that the complainant approached opposite party No.1 with a complaint to the mobile set after two weeks of purchase. The opposite party No.2 informed the opposite party No.1 that the motherboard of the set is to be replaced. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party No.1. If at all the complainant is entitled for any relief, opposite party No.2 and 3 are alone responsible.

4. On perusal of complaint, version and document the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Ext.A1 and A2 and Mobile set is marked as MO-1. Opposite party No.1 also filed proof affidavit and opposite party No.1 is examined as OPW1. In the cross-examination of OPW1, OPW1 stated that the complainant approached OPW1 within 10 days from the date of purchase with a complaint to the mobile set and OPW1 advised the complainant to approach opposite party No.2 being the authorized service centre. So the complainant entrusted the mobile set to opposite party No.2 in warranty period for service. Later the complainant was informed by opposite party No.2 that the motherboard of the set is defective and it is to be replaced and it will take at least one month to get it repaired. From this evidence, the Forum found that there is manufacturing defect to the mobile since the motherboard is defective. It is up to the opposite party No.2 and 3 to deny it. But opposite party No.2 and 3 remained ex-parte. Even if there is no expert opinion regarding manufacturing defect, the Forum reached at a conclusion by analyzing the evidences that there is manufacturing defect to the mobile set. The complainant prayed for return of purchase price and not the replacement of mobile. The opposite party No.2 and 3 failed to give proper service to the set and failed to replace the set on demand of complainant. So the Forum found that the act of opposite party No.2 and 3 amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Opposite party No.1 is only a sales point and there is no deficiency of service from their part. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant, he is entitled to get cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.2 and 3 are directed to pay Rs.7,600/- (Rupees Seven Thousand and Six Hundred) being the purchase price of the MO-1 mobile set to the complainant along with 12% interest from the date of purchase till realization. Opposite party No.2 and 3 also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) as cost of the proceedings. The complainant is directed to handover the MO-1 mobile set to the opposite party No.2 and 3 on receipt of the above amounts from them. The opposite party No.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above amounts to the complainant 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 9^th day of October 2015.

Date of Filing:21.07.2015.

PRESIDENT :Sd/- MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1. Manoj Geroge. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1. Kasim. Business.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Invoice. Dt:04.05.2015.

A2. Job Sheet. Dt:26.05.2015.

MO-1. Mobile Phone.

Exhibits for the opposite parties:-

Nil.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

a/-