By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to get the price of the defective mobile phone with cost and compensation.

2. Brief of the complaint:- On 23.12.2014 complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy S4 mini mobile set worth Rs.13,500/- from opposite party No.1. But the very next day onwards the speaker of the handset was damaged. Complainant used the handset with unusual sound and due to the loud sound it is very difficult to talk in the handset. Thereafter the complainant was busy with her official duties, on 01.01.2015 she approached the opposite party No.1 and complained that the handset was not working properly, As per this advice on the next day she approached the service centre, the service person examined the set and reported that the speaker was complaint and need to service, also they informed their inability to replace the set since it was lapsed 7 days. Complainant again approached opposite party No.1 and demanded to replace the handset with a new one. But they were not ready to accept the demands of the complainant. The complainant alleges that at the time of purchase, opposite party No.1's Manager offered one year replacement warranty. Even though the complaint occurs within one week the opposite parties were not ready to replace the handset. As per complaint this act of the opposite parties are deficiency of service, that the complaint is happened within the short span of time. Hence filed this complaint.

3. Opposite party No.1 appeared and filed version. In the version they submitted that the complainant approached this opposite party with the complaint long after purchasing the handset. Being a retail outlet of Samsung brand handset, this opposite party directed the complainant to approach the authorized service centre. Again they stated that service centre was ready to rectify the defects of the handset but complainant stick on replacement of handset or repayment of cash. Further they stated that if she want replacement of the handset the service centre/manufacturer should be impleaded.

4. Subsequently as per I.A.104/2015 filed by complainant, service centre and Manufacturer impleaded but they were not appeared and filed version. Hence they set ex-parte and proceeded with the case.

5. On perusal of complaint, version and documents 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.

6. Point No.1:- Complainant filed affidavit and examined as PW1. Ext.A1, A2 and MO-1 were marked. Ext.A1 is the Bill dated 23.12.2014. Ext.A2 is the copy of Estimate dated 02.01.2015. In Ext.A2 it is mentioned that “SPEAKER NOT CLEAR, CALLING SOUND HIGH” and opposite party No.2 inspected the unit and recommended for service. As per companies Terms and Policy handset will be replaced within 7 days from the date of purchase, after that company will give one year warranty. In this case 7 days period is over, so the replacement benefit is not available and the opposite party No.2 requested the complainant to produce the handset in Samsung Authorized Service Centre for warranty service. But in the version of opposite party No.1 they admitted that the service centre is ready and willing to give free service for the handset. The manufacturer is impleaded, but they were not appeared. On going through the records and evidences Forum is of the view that the complaint is occurred within the shortest period of time. On 8^th day itself, complainant approached the service centre with the alleged complaint. There is no expert opinion taken by the complainant, but Ext.A2 given by the authorized service centre can be considered as expert opinion and on perusal of Ext.A2 it is clearly stated that “Speaker is complaint and need to service”, as per companies Terms and Policy handset will be replaced within 7 days from the date of purchase, after that company will give one year warranty. But in this case complainant approached opposite party No.1 within time, the date mentioned in Ext.A2 is 02.01.2015, that means complainant approached immediately after the above mentioned period. The defect is admitted by opposite parties hence complainant is entitled to get the price of the handset. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.

7. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.2 is found in favour of the complainant, she is entitled to get the price of the handset with a new one with cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.3 is directed to return the price of handset ie Rs.13,500/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand and Five Hundred) to the complainant and opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) as cost and compensation. This Order must be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. After complying the order, the complainant is directed to return the MO-1 to the opposite party No.3.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 10^th day of July 2015.

Date of Filing: 06.01.2015.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1. Chinju Hisham. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Retail Invoice. Dt:23.12.2014.

A2. Estimate. Dt:02.01.2015.

MO-1. Mobile Phone.

Exhibits for the opposite parties:-

Nil.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

a/-