DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 12th day of January 2017
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 29/09/2016
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.146/2016)
V.K.Venugopalan
Advocate
S/o.Late K.P.Narayanan Nair,
Shakthi Sadan, Malikappura,
Behind Anugraha Kalyanamandapam,
Sai Junction, Olavakkode,
Palakkad Taluk – 678 002 - Complainant
(By Adv.V.K.Venugopalan)
V/s
1.M/s.Fone 4 Communications (India) P.Ltd.
Door No.11/1157(3), NMR Complex,
T.B.Road, Near EMKE Silks, Palakkad – 678 004
Rep.by its Proprietor
2.M/s.Syntech Technology Pvt.Ltd.
F-2, Block No.B1, Ground Floor,
Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,
Maharashtra Road
New Delhi – 110 044
Rep.by its Chairman
3.M/s.Znex Telecom, Vediocon Gionee
Certified Service Centre,
14/280-20,
2nd Floor, N.S.Tower,
Near Stadium Bus Stand,
Palakkad – 678 001
Rep.by its Manager - Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Smt.Shiny.P.R. President.
Brief facts of complaint.
The complainant has purchased a brand new smart phone Gionee P5L IME 869813024106300 from 1st opposite party, as per invoice No.284 dated 16/7/16 by paying a total amount of Rs.7,650/-. In the bill the name of the complainant’s son-in-law who accompanied him to the 1st opposite party happened to be reflected. However the mobile number entered therein is of the complainant.
2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the phone and 3rd opposite party is the authorized service center of 1st opposite party. Complainant submitted that on putting the phone in use, the complainant noted the defect of sparking sound from the receiver. On 25/7/2016 complainant approached the 1st opposite party and after examination they opined that it is because of the defect in the software and it stands corrected and returned the phone.
Again the phone developed the very same defect in excessive nature, within two days itself. Immediately the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and they directed the complainant to contact 3rd opposite party.
The technicians did something on the phone and returned it as if rectified the defect. The phone developed the very same defect again and when approached 3rd opposite party he checked the phone and opined that the receiver of the phone is defective and it is not available with them. He promised to get it by booking the component with the 2nd opposite party. After about ten days the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party as he did not receive any call from them till then. The 3rd opposite party changed the receiver by retaining the phone for a day.
On the very next day the defect recurred and complainant approached 3rd opposite party again. He wanted time to repair the phone and at the time complainant felt it proper to get a receipt for it. Till then they were not issuing any receipt even when the phone was retained by them for repairs. Complainant insisted for it and 3rd opposite party technician reluctantly issued a visiting card of the 3rd opposite party noting the complaint as receiver noise on 9/9/16.
The phone was returned only on 20/9/16 as defect cured. But when put it in use it was found that the battery is getting depleted within four hours and the phone developing burning heat. The complainant was unable to put the phone in pocket because of the heat. The complainant felt it not safe to use the phone and returned it to the 1st opposite party on 23/9/2016 itself. The sales man over there opined that there is serious inherent defect in the set and it cannot be repaired. 1st opposite party’s technician promised replacement of the phone with a new one for which he wanted to get consent from 3rd opposite party. The defective phone still remains with 1st opposite party also.
Complainant further submitted that the acts and omissions on the part of the opposite parties resulted in great hardships and irreparable loss to the complainant. The phone developed the complaint immediately after the purchase. Despite that fact the opposite parties failed to replace the defective set to the complainant. They are not even bothered about the safety of the others. It is a clear unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to replace the smart phone or to repay the price amount of Rs.7,650/- with interest @18%, pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards the inconvenience and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this proceedings.
Complaint was admitted and issued notice to opposite party. In spite of the receipt of notice 1st and 2nd opposite parties did not appear before the Forum. 3rd Opposite party appeared in person before the forum but he did not file version.
Evidence of the complainant consists of his chief affidavit and Ext A1 to A4 documents.
The following issues are considered
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2.If so, what is the relief?
Issues 1 & 2
Ext A1 shows that complainant has purchased the alleged phone along with other phone from the 1st opposite party on 16-7-16 and cost of the alleged phone was Rs.7650/-. Complainant submitted that bill was issued in the name of his son in law. Ext A2 visiting card shows that complainant entrusted the phone to the 3rd opposite party due to the complaint of receiver noise on 9-9-16 ie, within two months from the date of its purchase. Ext A4 also reveals that 3rd opposite party has taken back the phone with accessories from the complainant. Complainant submitted that the phone could not be used more than 15 days in total. As per the complaint the defect was occurred within 2 months of purchase of mobile phone. The defects are occurred within a short span of time of its purchase that is well within the warranty period. As such it is a clear proof of manufacturing defects of the mobile. As there is no contra evidence to the evidence adduced by the complainant, the evidence tendered by the complainant stands unchallenged. From the evidence adduced by the complainant, we arrived at a conclusion that by selling defective mobile, opposite parties committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
Hence we allow the complaint. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund the cost of mobile Rs.7,650/- (Rupees Seven thousand six hundred and fifty only) and to pay Rs 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation for mental agony along with cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the Complainant from the opposite party.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 12th day of January 2017.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Retail Invoice No.284 dated 16/7/16 issued from 1st opposite party for the
purchase of mobile phone worth Rs.7,650
Ext.A2 – Receipt / card issued by 3rd opposite party receiving the phone for servicing
dated 9/9/16
Ext.A3 – Receipt / card issued by 1st opposite party receiving the phone for service
dated 23/9/16
Ext.A4 – Receipt issued by 3rd opposite party for the receipt of all the accessories
including the box in respect of the phone dated 3/12/16
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Nil
Cost
Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
