D.o.F:19/07/2014
D.o.O:30/10/2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.156/14
Dated this, the 30th day of October 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA K.G : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Ravi.T.V, Haritham,
Koramkulam, Udinoor Po, : Complainant
Kasaragod. Dt.(in person)
1.Proprietor, i-fone,
Sales & Service, Main Road, Payyanur.(IN PERSON)
2.Micromax Mobile Kerala, Main Office, : Opposite parties
Pournamy, 9/116A, Opp.Lane No.12,
TOC High School Road, Vyttila Po. Kochin
682019.(Exparte)
ORDER
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
The brief facts of the complaint are as follows;
That the complainant purchased a mobile phone (M.No.Bolta 68) from the Ist opposite party by paying Rs.6500/- and the phone was not working and it was always in switch off mode automatically and the defect was immediately informed to the Ist opposite party and brought the phone to the Ist opposite party but it was not repaired or replaced and finally on 23/6/14 the complainant entrusted the mobile phone to Ist opposite party either for repair or for replacement. But the Ist opposite party failed either to repair or to replace the mobile phone. Hence this complaint is filed for necessary relief. 2nd opposite party is the company.
2. On receipt of notice from the Forum Ist opposite party appeared in person and filed some documents. Notice to 2nd opposite party returned unserved with a remark left. Hence on application by complainant the Forum ordered substitute service and news paper publication produced. Thereafter also 2nd opposite party remained absent hence set exparte.
3. Here the complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1&A2 marked . On the side of Ist opposite party Ext.B1 marked. On perusal of Ext.A1 it appears that the mobile phone was purchased on 6/6/14 and it was returned for replacement on 23/6/2014 ie within 2 weeks of its purchase. According to complainant the very day of its purchase itself he came to know that the phone has got complaints and the same is informed to the Ist opposite party but the Ist opposite party failed to rectify the defect. While hearing both sides Ist opposite party submitted that he is only the sub dealer of 2nd opposite party and may be exempted from liabilities. Ist opposite party further submitted that now the mobile phone is repaired and the same is intimated to the complainant through telephone by that time the complainant had filed this complaint. To prove the above aspects he had produced Ext.B1 telephone call list. But at present also the I st opposite party is not sure that whether the phone is in working condition or not. Moreover according to complainant when he approached the Ist opposite party for making the complaint of his phone his behavior towards the complainant is also not good. He behaved in a rude manner. The defect is admitted by the Ist opposite party. 2nd opposite party not appeared before the Forum no contra evidence adduced.
4. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that since the complainant was deprived his right to use the mobile phone it is a clear case of unfair trade practice and also denial of after sale service to customers. Delay in giving after sale service and misbehavior to customers amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.
Therefore the complaint is allowed .The Ist & 2nd opposite parties jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.6500/- the price of the mobile phone and further directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation for mental agony and sufferings and Rs.3000/- towards cost of the proceedings. On compliance of the order, being a sub dealer of 2nd opposite party the Ist opposite party can reimburse the amount from the 2nd opposite party through lawful means. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Ext.A1-cash receipt
A2- customer details cum warranty card
B1- telephone call list
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva
