IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.111/2013 (Filed on 20.08.2013)
Between:
Maneesh Gopinath,
Gopisadanam,
Aruvappulam.P.O.,
Konni – 689 691. ….. Complainant
And:
1. The Proprietor,
Sky Mobiles,
Market Junction,
M.C. Road, Adoor.
2. Proprietor,
Samsung Mobile Service Centre,
Kulathur Agencies,
Vettipram,
Pathanamthitta – 689 645. ….. Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: On 29.08.2012 complainant had purchased a Samsung Galaxy 5360 Mobile Phone from the 1st opposite party by paying Rs.7,100/- within one month from the date of purchase the side panel colour of the said mobile phone was lost. The matter was informed to the 1st opposite party and they advised to contact with the 2nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre. Complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and given complaint. But they have not rectified the defect and finally they informed that they were unable to do anything. The above said defect of the mobile set is a manufacturing defect, and the said defect is occurred in the warranty period. Selling of the mobile set having manufacturing defect is an unfair trade practice, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting the price of the mobile phone Rs.7,100/- or getting a new mobile phone of another Model having the same range along with cost of Rs.1,000/- and compensation of Rs.5,000/-.
3. In this case, opposite parties are exparte.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the complainant, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3. After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.
6. The Point:- Complainant’s allegation in the complaint is that 1st opposite party sold a mobile sent to the complainant, within warranty period the colour of its side panel was lost and it is due to its manufacturing defect. Matter was also informed to the 1st opposite party and as per the advise of the 1st opposite party complainant approached the 2nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre. But the defect did not rectified by the 2nd opposite party. They also informed that they could not do anything. The above said act of the opposite party is an unfair trade practice and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and produced 3 documents which are marked as Ext.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the cash bill No.810 dated 29.08.2012 issued to the complainant by the 1st opposite party. Ext.A2 is the warranty card of the mobile phone issued to the complainant on 29.08.2012. Ext.A3 is the copy of the written complaint submitted to the 2nd opposite party by the complainant on 26.09.2012.
8. On a perusal of Ext.A1 to A3 it is seen that the complainant had purchased a mobile set for Rs.7,100/- from the 1st opposite party. It is also seen from the deposition of the complainant that the side panel is lost within a short span of time and it was not properly repaired by the opposite parties.
9. Since opposite parties are exparte. We find no reason to disbelieve the allegations of the complainant and hence the complainant’s case stands proved as unchallenged. So we find that the act of the opposite parties is an unfair trade practice and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Therefore, this complaint is allowable.
10. In the result, this complaint is allowed thereby the 1st opposite party is directed to replace the mobile set with a new one of the same range and the 2nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost to the complainant within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the cost of the mobile set with 10% interest from today from the 1st opposite party and compensation and cost ordered with 10% interest from today from the 2nd opposite party, till the realization of the whole amount. The complainant is also directed to return the defective mobile set to the 1st opposite party on compliance of this order by the opposite parties.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of November, 2013.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Maneesh Gopinath
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Cash bill No.810 dated 29.08.2012 for Rs.7,100/- issued by the
1st opposite party to the complainant.
A2 : Warranty card of the mobile phone.
A3 : Photocopy of the written complaint dated 26.09.2012 issued by
the complainant to the 2nd opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Maneesh Gopinath, Gopisadanam, Aruvappulam.P.O.,
Konni – 689 691.
(2) The Proprietor, Sky Mobiles, Market Junction, M.C. Road, Adoor.
(3) Proprietor, Samsung Mobile Service Centre,
Kulathur Agencies, Vettipram, Pathanamthitta – 689 645.
(4) The Stock File.
