16.7.2008 Sri.K.Gopalan,President This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.16, 000/- as compensation together with cost of the proceeding. The cases of the complainant in brief are as follows: - The complainant purchased Reliance Land Phone LG 340E from 1st opposite party by paying a sum of Rs.849/- on 3.7.2007. The invoice No.446 issued as receipt. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are distributors of products manufactured by3rd opposite party. At the time of purchase complainant was assured by 1st opposite party that the phone apparatus is a new brand and there will not be any defect for 2 years. In case any defect occurred they will be repaired by opposite parties 2 and 3 free of cost. If it is not reparable the set will be replaced with new one. Complainant purchased the phone by believing the words of 1st opposite party. But the set became faulty within few days. Set was taken to 1st opposite party twice to rectify the defect. But it became again faulty. Complainant approached 1st opposite party 3rd time when the 1st opposite party received and kept the set with him assuring the complainant that he will contact opposite parties 2 and 3 and solve the complaint or else the same will be replaced. Complainant approached opposite party again after 4 days. At this time opposite party stated that the set has become totally defective and unfit for use. When complainant asked for replacement 1st opposite party reported that it is not possible. There after complainant sent lawyer notice to opposite parties on 22.12.2007 calling upon to replace or refund the value of the set. But there was no response. This attitude of the opposite parties has created much mental agony and financial loss. All these happened due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.1, 000/- towards the price and expenses of the phone together with cost of these proceedings. Notice sent to opposite parties. 3rd opposite party appeared and filed version. 2nd opposite party appeared through Adv. Prasanna Narayanan but no version filed and subsequently became absent. 1st opposite party also not appeared. Opposite parties 1 and 2 subsequently called absent and set exparte. 3rd opposite party filed version and contended as follows: - 3rd opposite party is an unnecessary party. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and 3rd Opposite party. The 1st opposite party is not a dealer or distributor of this opposite party. The invoice No.446 could be the receipt issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant for the Reliance Landline phone service connection and not for the purchase of any brand new telephone apparatus. 1st opposite party is not authorized by this opposite party to make any representation regarding the warranty conditions of the telephone apparatus. The telephone apparatus were purchased by the 2nd opposite party in bulk from the 3rd opposite party and the 3rd opposite party originally gave 1 years warranty to the 2nd opposite party which has expired long back. The 2nd opposite party is providing telephone service and not selling apparatus to their customers. 3rd opposite party has no liability if defective phone apparatus is given to the complainant and they gave only to redressed by opposite parties 1 and 2. On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration:- 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint? 3. Reliefs and costs. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 Complainant adduced evidence that she has purchased Reliance Land phone LG 340 from 1st opposite party. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by 1st opposite party. In the cross examination PW1 deposed that she has purchased the phone from the 1st opposite party, Fortune communications, Kuthuparamba. Thus the purchase is proved. The oral testimony of PW1 proves that it was repaired two times and on failure, entrusted the apparatus in the custody of 1st opposite party for either to repair or to replace. But it was neither repaired nor replaced. Complainant sent Ext.A2 lawyer notice calling upon to refund the value of the phone with damages of Rs.1000/- and notice charge Rs.250/-. Ext.A3 series is the receipt issued by the postal authorities. Ext.A4 series are acknowledgements.Exts.A3 and A4 proves that lawyer notice were sent by complainant and received by opposite parties. Opposite parties ignore the notice and did not replied the same. It is the duty of the opposite parties to reply the notice. The 3rd opposite party in their version stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and 3rd opposite party. 3rd opposite party also contended that the 1st opposite party is not authorized by 3rdoppoiste party to make any representation regarding the warranty conditions of the telephone apparatus. But 3rd opposite party has no case that the apparatus purchased by the complainant is not manufactured by 3rd opposite party. 3rd opposite party in their version stated that the 2nd opposite party is providing telephone service. Any how or other it is not proved that the set became out of order due to the manufacturing defect to be held liable 3rd opposite party. But the available evidence shows that opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to rectify the defect. There is no justification in keeping the apparatus with the 1st opposite party without doing repair or replacing it. 2nd opposite party the service provider has liable to rectify the defect. In the cross examination PW1 deposed that 1st opposite party is liable to refund the amount of phone and she sought for relief from 1st opposite party from whom she purchased phone. Going through the facts and available evidence there is clear deficiency on the part of 1st opposite party. Hence we are of the opinion that 1st opposite party is liable to refund the value of the phone apparatus Rs.849/-, and Rs.500/- as the cost of this proceedings. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the 1st opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.849/- (Rupees Eight hundred and forty nine only) as the value of the apparatus and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the 1st opposite party under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Cash bill dt.3.7.07 issued by OP1. A2.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to Ops. A3. Postal receipts. A4.Postal acknowledgement cards Exhibits for the opposite parties Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite parties Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Diusputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.
