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 replace the phone with new phone and to pay Rs.5,000/- for the loss of job and Rs.1,500/- for expenses spent and Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant purchased a mobile phone from 1^st Opposite party which is manufactured by 3^rd Opposite party on 21.11.2013. The mobile shown complaint of blinking Display with a period of 3 months from the date of purchase. The touch screen is not properly working also. The complainant gave the mobile with 1^st Opposite Party for repair and 1^st Opposite party returned the mobile to the complainant after 2 weeks stating that the mobile is repaired. But actually , the defect was not repaired properly. On the 2^nd occasion, the Complainant when entrusted the mobile again for repair with 1^st Opposite Party, 1^st opposite Party informed the Complainant to entrust the phone to 2^nd Opposite party. On 21.07.2014, the Complainant entrusted the phone to 2^nd Opposite Party for repair. But 2^nd Opposite party not repaired the phone stating that the parts are not available. Then again the Complaint on 10.11.2014, entrusted the mobile with 1^st Opposite party and from there, the bottom portion of mobile phone screen glass is broken. Aggrieved by this the complaint is filed.

3. On receipt of complaint, notice was issued to Opposite parties and Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 appeared before the Forum and filed version. 3^rd Opposite party not appeared and 3^rd Opposite Party is set exparte. In the version of 1^st Opposite Party, 1^st Opposite Party admitted the sale of mobile to the Complainant and also stated that when the Complainant approached 1^st Opposite party, 1^st Opposite Party directed the Complainant to the service Centre ie 2^nd Opposite Party. There is no deficiency of service from the part of 1^st Opposite Party. In the version of 2^nd Opposite Party, 2^nd Opposite Party stated that 2^nd Opposite party is un necessary party and there is no transaction with Complainant by 2^nd Opposite Party and 2^nd Opposite Party did not gave any service to the Complainant. There is no deficiency of service from the part of 2^nd Opposite Party.

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

1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A3 and mobile is marked as MO1. Ext.A1 is the warranty card and Ext.A2 is the job sheet issued by 2^nd Opposite Party. Ext.A3 is also a job sheet. As per Ext.A1 document, it is seen that 2^nd Opposite Party is the authorised service centre of Carbon Mobile purchased by the Complainant which is manufactured by 3^rd Opposite Party. As per the version of 2^nd Opposite Party, it is evident that 2^nd Opposite party did not give any service to the Complainant even if Job sheet is prepared by 2^nd Opposite party explaining the defects. 1^st Opposite Party is only a sale point and when complaint is reported, 1^st Opposite Party directed the Complainant to 2^nd Opposite party. The 2^nd Opposite party being the authorised service centre of 3^rd Opposite Party failed to cure the defects MO1 mobile and to give proper service to the Complainant. By going through the complaint and affidavit, it is understood that the MO1 mobile is having complaint of blinking of display and touch not working. 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties not denied the allegations of the complaint regarding defects. So by analysing the entire evidences, the Forum found that there is deficiency of service from the part of 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

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

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 is directed to replace the MO1 defective mobile of the Complainant with a new one and also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The Complainant shall return the MO1 mobile to the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties on receipt of the above amounts from the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties. The 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite parties shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for the whole sum.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 18^th day of June 2015.

Date of Filing:18.11.2014

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Prasad. K.S. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Warranty Card.

A2. Job Sheet: 5736.

A3. Job Sheet No. L535J1941.

MO1 Mobile.

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

Nil