IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                             CC.170/13

                     Dated this, the  30^th  day of  October 2013

PRESENT:

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                         : PRESIDENT

SMT.K.G.BEENA                                          : MEMBER

 SMT.SHIBA.M. SAMUEL                             : MEMBER

P.Suresh. R/at Nellithara, Anandashram.Po       : Complainant

Kanhangad.Via.

(In Person)

  1. Proprietor, Mobile Club. Metro place Building, : Opposite parties

     Near Fish Market, Kanhangad.

(Exparte)

2. Manager, Fans Mobile, Fans Mobile,

    Near Dhanalakshmi Tex, Opp. Bus Stand,

    Kanahangad.

                                                                        O R D E R

SMT.P.RAMADEVI, PRESIDENT

            The facts of the complainant in brief as follows:

            That the complainant had purchased a mobile phone from opposite party No.1  on 1-12-2012 for an amount of Rs.1700/- with one year warranty.  After 6 months of its purchase he  found some defect i.e its sound system is not working properly.  The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party with warranty card.  Opposite party No.1 told him that 2^nd opposite party is the service centre and directed him to give the mobile to second opposite party.  On receiving the mobile phone 2^nd opposite party issued receipt and told him the complainant that for repair it will take two weeks time.  After two weeks the phone was not repaired.  Opposite party told the complainant that the mobile phone is sent to the company for repair.  Thereafter the complainant approached opposite parties many times for taking back his phone.  But the opposite parties failed to repair and give back the  phone.  Hence this complaint is filed for necessary relief.

2.         On receipt of notice from this Forum, opposite party No.1 is not turned up.  Name of opposite party No.1 called absent and set exparte.  Opposite party No.2 appeared in person and submitted that  he is not the service centre of the mobile phone purchased by the complainant only at the instruction of opposite parties he received the phone and kept the mobile in his shop and he is no way connected to this mobile phone.  He is mis-joinder of parties.

3.         After considering the facts of the case the following issues raised for consideration.

1.    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties or not?

2.    If so, what is the relief as cost and compensation?     

The complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts A1 & A2 marked. Opposite party No.2 has no oral evidence. Heard both sides.   

            Here the 1^st opposite party failed to provide after sale service to its customers.  The 1^st  opposite  party, the dealer directed the complainant to give the mobile phone to          

2^nd opposite party who is alleged to be a third party.  Complainant is not aware whether opposite party No.2 is service centre or third party.  No contra evidence is adduced by opposite party No.1 that opposite party No.1 is the service centre. Here we can not hold that opposite party No.2 is the service centre.  Opposite party No.1 eventhoguh he properly served the notice failed to appear before the Forum.

          Hence we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party.  Therefore the complaint is allowed directing the 1^st opposite party to pay Rs.1700/- being the price of the mobile phone and further directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards the cost of the proceeding.  Opposite party No.2 is exonerated from the liability.  Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of complaint till payment.    

MEMBER                                                             MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1. Photo copy of receipt.

A2.  Photocopy of Service Job sheet.

PW1.Suresh.P.

 MEMBER                                                       MEMBER                                                           PRESIDENT

Pj/