CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD
Dated this the 25th September, 2015
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 08/01/2014
CC /8/2014
Jaijith.P,
S/o.Jayapalan, : Complainant
“Padmalayam”, Kadukkankunnam,
Malampuzha, Palakkad District.
(By Adv.A.V.Arun)
Vs
1. M/s.Cell Communications
A.R Complex, Priyadarshini Road, : Opposite parties
Palakkad-678 001
(By Adv.K.P.Vijayalakshmi)
2. M/s.Samsung India Electronics (P) Ltd.,
A 25 Ground Floor, Front Tower,
Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate Suites,
New Delhi- 110 044
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
The case of the complainant as follows: The complainant purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the 2nd opposite party having model REX90 354675/05/315143/8 on 22/07/2013 for an amount of Rs.5,900/- from the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party is the dealer of the 2nd opposite party who is the manufacturer of the said mobile phone. Within a short span the instrument was found faulty and was not working. Hence the complainant approached the service centre of the 2nd opposite party on 26/09/2013 for affecting repairs or to replace the instrument with a new one. The Service centre of the 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that he has to pay Rs.6,529.95 towards repair charges and an estimate to that effect was also handed over to the complainant. The complainant submits that the above instrument is having manufacturing defects and that is the reason for its non-functioning. Subsequently the complainant issued a notice dated.20/11/2013 through his counsel to the opposite parties demanding either replacement or refund of the amount paid towards the cost of the instrument, but they have failed to comply with the demands stipulated in the notice. The 1st opposite party issued a reply admitting the contents of the complainant . The complainant alleges that the above act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and also unfair trade practice.
Hence the complaint.
The notice was issued to the opposite parties for appearance. 1st opposite party alone appeared inspiteof accepting notice from the Forum. Hence 2nd opposite party was called and set exparty. 1st opposite party filed version admitting the defects but denied the liability. They contented that the 2nd opposite party who is the manufacturer of the instrument had to compensate the complainant.
The complainant filed chief affidavit and an application for appointing an expert commissioner. Application was allowed and the commissioner was appointed to examine the instrument and file a detailed report. But the commissioner appointed by the Forum had not executed the warrant issued from the Forum. Another person was appointed from the panel submitted by the complainant. Warrant was returned stating not known. Hence expert opinion can not be obtained. Complainant filed chief affidavit Ext.A1-A6 was marked. Instrument was marked as MO1. No affidavit was filed from the part of the 1st opposite party. The evidence was closed and the matter was heard.
The following issues are to be considered.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite
Parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
ISSUES 1 & 2
It is evident from Ext.A1 that the complainant had purchased MO1 from 1st opposite party on 22/07/2013 for an amount of Rs.5,900/- . As per Ext.A2 the same is having a warranty for a period of one year from Ext.A3-A5 it is obvious that MO1 had turned defective on 26/09/2013 itself i.e. within 2 months from the date of purchase. From Ext.A4 it is viewed that the service centre opposite party had demanded an amount of Rs.6,529/- towards repair charges which is higher than the actual cost of the instrument. It is also admitted by 1st opposite party that the instrument is having manufacturing defects and they had issued notices to the manufacturer for replacing the instrument. 2nd opposite party had not cared to send any reply either to the complainant or to OP1 regarding the defects of the instrument. They had also not replaced the instrument and failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. The above act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice. 2nd OP remained exparte before the Forum. Hence it can be assumed that the mobile phone purchased by the complainant manufactured by the 2nd opposite party is having manufacturing defects within the warranty period itself. Hence the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence we direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.5,900/- which was the cost of the said instrument and also to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards compensation for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice committed by them. We also direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards cost of this proceedings. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within 1 month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to get 9% interest for the said amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of September, 2015.
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/- Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 –Bill No.484 dtd.22/07/2013 issued by Cell Communication, Palakkad (Original)
Ext.A2 – Warranty Card (Original)
Ext.A3 – Samsung Service Request dtd.26/09/2013 (True copy)
Ext.A4 - Estimate dtd.09/11/2013 issued by Uniqare (Photocopy)
Ext.A5 series – True and Attested notice dtd.20/11/2013 issued by the complainant to the opposite parties along with postal receipt and acknowledgement card
Ext.A6 - Reply notice dated nil issued by Cell Communications, to the 1st opposite party (photocopy)
Witness marked on the side of complainant
Nil
MO1- Mobile Phone
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost Allowed
Rs.1000/- as cost.
