This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      08-02-11 in the presence of complainant and opposite parties 1 to 4 remained exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, LADY MEMBER:

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant to direct the opposite party to replace the defective cell phone with a new one or to refund an amount of Rs.2,150/- with 12% interest and compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs.

The brief facts of complaint are as follows:

                The complainant on viewing the advertisement of 2^nd opposite party in daily news paper regarding mobile phone, approached 1^st opposite party who is the distributor of product for purchase of a mobile phone.   The 1^st opposite party explained about the working of Micro Max X1i model phone in terms of battery backup, facilities provided in the phone etc.  The complainant got impressed and purchased Micro Max X1i model mobile phone on 17-01-09 for Rs.2,150/-.  At that time, the 1^st opposite party gave 1 year warranty for that product. 

                The complainant alleges that after using two months it started giving trouble by switching off automatically.  Immediately, the complainant approached 1^st opposite party and asked to get it repair or to replace it. But 1^st opposite party advised the complainant to contact service center i.e., 3^rd opposite party.  The complainant took the defective cell phone to 3^rd opposite party, who explained that the defect is due to loose contact of battery and they made temporary adjustment by inserting a paper board at the bottom of battery to tighten it. 

                The complainant was not satisfied with the adjustment made by 3^rd opposite party, since the defect is manufacturing defect and it occurred within the warranty period of one year, the opposite parties have to replace it with a new one.  But they did not choose to do it.  Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence, the complaint.        

                The opposite parties 1 to 4 remained exparte.

                The complainant filed his affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to A5 in support of his contentions. The complainant also filed specifications advertised through internet regarding the above product by filing a memo.  The complainant filed bill pertaining to the mobile phone marked as Ex.A2, which shows that Micro Max X1i model mobile is purchased on 07-01-09 for Rs.2150/- by the complainant.  The specifications relating to mobile phone obtained from internet revealed warranty of one year.

                In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to replace the defective Micro Max X1i model mobile phone with a new one.
2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation for suffering and pain and Rs.500/- towards costs to the complainant.

3. The above ordered shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which, the amounts ordered in item No.2 shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 11^th day of February, 2011.

          Sd/XXXXX                      Sd/XXXXX                        Sd/XXXXX 

          MEMBER                                  MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

   APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral evidence is adduced on either side

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainants:

For Opposite Parties:    NIL

                                                                                          Sd/XXXXX 

                                                                                         PRESIDENT