IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 29th day of February, 2016
Filed on 13.11.2015
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.334/2015
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Ashraf M.K. 1. Onida MIRC Electronics Ltd.
Madathilchirayil Onida House, G – 1, MIDC
Nadvath Nagar P.O. Mahakali Caves Road
Alappuzha – 688 526 Andheri East, Mumbai
Pin – 400 093
2. Mobile Plant, Sales, Service
Vaduthala Junction
Nadvath Nagar P.O.
Arookkutty, Alappuzha
Pin – 688 526
3. 3G Mobile and Service Centre
South of Iron Bridge
Canal Road, Cherthala
Alappuzha – 688 524
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:-
The complainant purchased a mobile phone from the second opposite party manufactured by the first opposite party for an amount of Rs.1700/- on 15.4 2014. The phone became defective and entrusted to the third opposite party who is the authorized service centre of the first opposite party on 16.9.2014 and the third opposite party has promised to repair the defects within one week. Thereafter the complainant approached the third opposite party many times for getting the phone. But the mobile phone has not been returned so far. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
2. Notice against the first opposite party served. First opposite party appeared before the Forum but not filed version. Notice against second and third opposite party returned as not know. 3. The complainant produced three documents which were marked as Exts.A1 to A3.
4. Considering the allegations of the complainant the Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite
parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief sought for?
5. Points 1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the first opposite party. The phone became defective during the warranty period and entrusted to the authorized service centre of the first opposite party. But the phone has not been repaired and returned so far and hence filed this complaint.
6. The complainant produced three documents which were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the cash bill dated 15.4.2014 issued by the second opposite party evidencing that the complainant had purchased ONIDA G40 mobile phone for an amount of Rs.1700/-. Ext.A2 is the receipt issued by the third opposite party shows that the mobile phone has been entrusted to them for repair on 16.9.2014. Ext.A3 is the warranty card shows that the product has one year warranty. From Ext.A2 it is clear that the phone became defective during the warranty period itself. According to the complainant the phone has not been returned so far, even though he approached the opposite parties many times. Since the product has not been repaired and returned so far they have committed deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to get it replaced with a new one. Since the primary relief is granted, we refrain from awarding compensation. So the complaint is allowed accordingly.
In the result, the first opposite party is directed to replace the mobile phone with a new one of the same model / price with fresh warranty. First opposite party is further directed to pay an amount Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of February, 2016 Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Cash bill dated 15.4.2014
Ext.A2 - Receipt dated 16.9.2014
Ext.A3 - Warranty card
Evidence of the opposite party: - Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by: - pr/-
Compared by:-
