By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-

The complaint filed against the opposite party for the non delivery of the telephone handset given for repair in the warranty period.

2. The complaint in brief is as follows: The complainant is a purchaser of a mobile phone from the 1^st opposite party shop. As instructed by the 1^st opposite party the complainant purchased mobile phone of videocon on 15.01.2011. At the time of purchase assurance given by the 1^st opposite party was that if phone has any complaint within the warranty period it would be repaired and towards price of the mobile phone Rs.1,650/- was paid by the complainant. After four months use the mobile phone became defective there was no display in the phone set. The complainant took the mobile phone set to the shop of the 1^st opposite party and entrusted it to the 1^st opposite party. Two days after accepting the mobile set, informed that the mobile handset has some defect it is to be cleared after repair the handset would be given to the complainant later. When the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party to get back the mobile phone set after repair, the 1^st opposite party demanded Rs.1,200/- as the repair charges if the phone is to be repaired. The 1^st opposite party also threatened the complainant and he was told that mobile set can be obtained from the 2^nd opposite party who is the service center of the brand. Mobile phone set given for repair was not given back in the absence of payment for repair. The complainant was not ready for payment of repair charge since the instrument became defective in the warranty period. There may be an order directing the opposite parties to give the complainant an another mobile phone in the range of the same price along with Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- for cost.

3. The 1^st opposite party filed version in short it is as follows: There was no insistence from the side of the 1^st opposite party to purchase the mobile phone of videocon company. The complainant himself applied his mind for the purchase of the mobile phone which is found better for him and he was fully satisfied in the working condition of the phone. The 1^st opposite party had not given any promise to the complainant that the mobile set would be repaired free of cost and there was no demand from the 1^st opposite party Rs.1,200/- as repairing charge. The handset was brought to the showroom of the 1^st opposite party for the disorder of display due to fall in water. On examination of the set by 1^st opposite party somebody else attended the phone set earlier before bringing the phone to the 1^st opposite party. The handset if fall in to water the company would not give any warranty as per the conditions of sale. If the set is to be repaired expense of Rs.1,200/- is to be met by the complainant himself.

4. Two days later the complainant again contacted the 1^st opposite party to get the phone repaired free of cost. This opposite party on receivel of the handset handed over it to the videocon service center from where the repair was to be done. The manufacturer of the handset is to be impleaded being a necessary party along with the service center of Videocon. The handset fall in to water and the entry of water in to the components of the handset is the reason for display disappear of the handset. The claim of the complainant for cost and compensation is unreasonable and nothing but an experimental venture.

5. The repair of the handset is strictly based on the terms and conditions of the warranty. The warranty is also exempted in specified conditions. In this case due to fall of the handset in water the warranty cannot be undertaken. Moreover the complainant itself is bad for non jointer of necessary parties. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

6. The 2^nd opposite party filed version in short it is as follows: The complainant entrusted mobile handset for repair in the service center of this opposite party. On examination of the mobile handset it is found that handset fell in to water and the display became defective due to this. In the warranty card itself it is noted that fall in water of the handset is out of warranty condition for replace or repair. Anyhow the warranty conditions are left for the decision of the 3^rd opposite party who is the manufacturer. This opposite party is not liable for any relief as claimed by the complainant. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

7. The 3^rd opposite party is declared exparty.

8. Points in considerations are:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

9. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consist of the proof affidavit of the complainant. Exts.A1 to A3 are the documents produced. Opposite parties No.1 and 2 not evidenced in this case.

10. The dispute in issue is the non repair of the mobile handset in the warranty period. The display of the handset is lost. The complainant purchased handset from the 1^st opposite party's shop for which Rs.1,650/- was paid. Ext.A1 is the invoice given to the complainant. Anyhow from the documents produced the 1^st opposite party is only a outlet for the disposal of the mobile phones of different companies. The service for the respective handset to be availed from the concerned authorized centers. The 1^st opposite party is an authorized sales point. The assertion in the invoice is that no warranty for water entry and physical damages. The warranty card is also produced by the complainant. The 2^nd opposite party is the Videocon service center who is entrusted the handset for repair. The opposite parties made evasive contention that the handset is not repairable due to fall in water which is an exemption for warranty conditions. The handset is entrusted to the 2^nd opposite party the service center. Apart from the assertion of mere denial of warranty no steps has taken to establish the contention by opposite party is that the complaints of the handset come within the ambit of the warranty exemption. The allegation of the complainant is that the handset lost the display within the warranty period and the opposite parties are liable to repair the handset free of cost. We are in the opinion that the non repair of the mobile handset by the opposite parties is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice it is to be compensated with cost.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties No.1 to 3 are jointly and severely liable to compensate the complainant refunding the price of the mobile handset ie Rs.1,650/- ( Rupees One Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Only) along with cost of Rs.500/- ( Rupees Five Hundred Only). This is to be complied by the opposite parties within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.

Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 14^th February 2012.

Date of Filing:25.07.2011.