This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to refund `4,990 being the value of mobile along with `5000 as compensation and cost.

          The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a mobile phone set from 1^st opposite party, manufactured by 2^nd opposite party on 20.10.09 for an amount of  `4990 which has a warranty of one year which covers all manufacturing defects. During August 2010, the performance of the handset became poor and during 1^st week of September 2010 the incoming calls were of low  speech which is inaudible the display  on the screen of the handset was confined to half of its size even to make a call or read a message. The mater was brought to the notice of 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party wanted the complainant to bring the handset the day on which the 2^nd opposite party’s technician visit the shop of 1^st opposite party. The complainant visited 1^st opposite party’s shop again because of the reason that there is no information on the part of 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party directed the complainant to visit 2^nd opposite party’s service centre at Kannur and visited the service centre of 2^nd opposite party on 22.9.10. The complainant handed over the set to 2^nd opposite party’s service center and a receipt was issued for the same. On 15.11.10 the service centre of 2^nd opposite party returned the mobile to the complainant without rectifying the defect. If the defect is incurable the 2^nd opposite party is liable to replace the mobile set. So there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complainant issued a lawyer notice to opposite parties and they received the same, 1^st opposite party issued reply stating untenable contentions. Now the mobile could not be used for any purpose and hence opposite parties are liable to return the amount. The complainant had suffered both mentally and physically and hence this complaint.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum 1^st opposite party appeared and filed their version. Even though 2^nd opposite party acknowledged proper notice they remains absent and hence they were called absent and set exparte.

          The 1^st opposite party filed version submitting that they are only one among the dealer of Karbon mobile of 2^nd opposite party. 1^st opposite party is not sure about the purchase of the alleged mobile and if he had purchased. It is warranted for a period of one year subjected to certain conditions and limitations and issued warranty card also. It is incorrect to say that the mobile became defective within a short span of time. 1^st opposite party admits that whenever a customer approaches the opposite party for checking the handset or its service, the opposite party will used to direct such customer to approach the 2^nd opposite party as the 2^nd opposite party the manufacturer. The defects of display on the screen will happen only due to the mishandling of the set and as per the warranty defects occurred due to the mishandling of the same will not cover the warranty and for repairing the defects occurred due to mishandling, the actual expenses has to be paid and also the company is not liable to cure the defects free of cost. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1.     Whether there is any deficiency on the side of opposite parties?

2.    Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed in

       the complaint?

3.   Relief and cost.

                    The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7.

Issue No.1 to 3

          The case of the complaint is that due to manufacturing defect, the mobile phone purchased by the complainant from 1^st opposite party for `4990 become defective within a few months of its purchase. In order to prove his case he was examined as PW1 and documents such as Bill dt. 20.10.09, warranty card, job sheet dt.22.9.10, copy of lawyer notice, acknowledgement  card, reply notice etc. the Ext.A1 and A2 shows that the complaint had purchased a Carbonn Mobile  from 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party made by 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party for an amount of `4990 having one year warranty. The complainant contended that the mobile become defective within the stipulated period of warranty.Ext.A3 job sheet shows that the phone was entrusted to the 2^nd opposite party’s service centre  to cure the defect of incoming call sound low and screen not full. According to opposite party, at the time of purchase of the mobile they were the dealer and now they have no dealership with 2^nd opposite party. The complainant contended that the mobile become defective due to manufacturing defect and Ext.A3 also substantiate the case of the complainant. There is no contra evidence before us to prove otherwise. The absent of 2^nd opposite party in proceedings before the Forum itself is a deficient service. So in the absence of denial and absence of contra evidence, we are of the opinion that the mobile phone become defective due to manufacturing defect and by selling a defective set, 2^nd opposite party has shown unfair trade practice. Hence the 2^nd opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant either by replacing the defective mobile or by returning the purchase price of `4990 with `1000 as cost of the proceedings. The 1^st opposite party is exonerated from the liability since  they are not dealer of 2^nd opposite party at prersent order passed accordingly.  

In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the 2^nd opposite party either to replace the defective mobile or to refund `4990 (Rupees Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety only) being the purchase price with `1000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant can execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act.

                                 Sd/-                     Sd/- 

                        President                     Member    

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.Bill dt.20.10.09 issued by OP1.

A2.Guarantee card issued by OP

A3.Copy of service job sheet issued by OP

A4. Copy of lawyer notice sent to Ops

A5 & A6. Acknowledgement cards

A7. Reply notice

Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1. Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite parties: Nil

                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                          Senior Superintendent

Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.