BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 23/12/2011
Date of Order : 17/07/2012
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 720/2011
Between
Abhilash. E.C., | :: | Complainant |
Edathiparambil House, Palissery, Poovathussery. (P.O.), Annammanada. |
| (By Adv. P.S. Anishad, 311, H.B. Flats, Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam.) |
And
1. Nidus Technology, | :: | Opposite Parties |
Sak Building, Chittoor Road, Pulleppady Jn., Cochin – 17, Rep. by its Manager, Mr. Noorudheen. 2. Head Office, Micromax House, 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase - V, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 015, Rep. by its Managing Director. |
| (Op.pty 1 absent)
(Op.pty 2 by Adv. T.J. Lakshmanan, Penta Queen, Padivattom, Cochin - 24) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The undisputed facts of the complainant's case is as follows :
The complainant purchased a mobile handset from Basement, Penta Menaka, Ernakulam which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. Within 4 months of purchase, the gadget became defunct. The complainant entrusted the same with the 1st opposite party for repairs. But the 1st opposite party returned the same without its repairs on 09-09-2011 stating that the spare parts were not available. Later, it was informed that the spare parts were available and the complainant gave the phone again to the 1st opposite party on 26-05-2011. But they could not repair the same due to its manufacturing defect. In the mean time, the complainant had to purchase another handset. So, the complainant preferred this complaint seeking documents against the opposite parties to refund the price of the phone together with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs of the proceedings.
2. The 1st opposite party duly accepted the notice of this complaint, but opted to remain absent for their own reasons. Though the 2nd opposite party appeared through counsel, later the counsel submitted that he has no instruction on the part of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on his side. Heard the counsel for the complainant.
3. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the gadget?
Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings?
4. Point No. i. :- Ext. A1 goes to show that on 16-06-2010, the complainant purchased a mobile handset from Mobile Zone, Cochin at a price of Rs. 3,400/-. Ext. A2 customer job card would show that on 26-05-2011, the complainant entrusted the gadget with the 1st opposite party for its repairs. Thereafter on 22-08-2011, the complainant caused to issue Ext. A3 lawyer notice to the 1st opposite party demanding either to cure the defect or to replace the same with another piece together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. The 1st opposite party received Ext. A3 notice on 24-08-2011 evident by Ext. A4 acknowledgment card, but there was no response. Subsequently, the complainant was compelled to purchase another phone, since he is a professional surveyor. There is no reason to repudiate the case of the complainant, especially when the 1st opposite party has not cared to respond to the lawyer notice and the notice issued by this Forum which speaks volumes necessarily, which is tantamount to acceptance of allegations. Therefore, the complainant is entitled either to get the phone replaced with a new one or to get the price refunded. According to the Hon'ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, a frustrated consumer is entitled to get refund of the price of the gadget (Sony Ericsson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal (IV (2007) CPJ 294 (NC) ). So in this case, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the mobile handset from he opposite parties.
5. Point No. ii. :- The primary grievance of the complainant having been met squarely and adequately, no further order for compensation is necessary. Nevertheless, the opposite parties are liable to pay costs of the proceedings to the complainant, since he was compelled to knock at the doors of this Forum unnecessarily at a no go. We fix it at Rs. 1,000/-.
6. In the result, we partly allow the complainant and direct as follows:
The opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund Rs. 3,400/- to the complainant together with interest @ 12% p.a. from 16-06-2010.
The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 17th day of July 2012
Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | An invoice dt. 16-06-2010 |
“ A2 | :: | Customer Job card |
“ A3 | :: | A lawyer notice dt. 22-08-2011 |
“ A4 | :: | An acknowledgment card |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
Depositions :- |
|
|
PW1 | :: | E.C. Abhilash - complainant |
=========
