THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C.103/2015

Dated this the 31^st day of October, 2016

(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.               :  President)

                                                                        Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A                     :  Member

                                                                        Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B.     :  Member

ORDER

Present: Rose Jose, President:

            This petition is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for getting an order directing the opposite party to pay total amount of Rs.40,000/- including the price of Mobile and compensation.

            The facts of the case is that the complainant had entrusted his LG smart phone model LGP713,AINDWH  IMEI No. 355764050770645 for repair to the 1^st opposite party on 17/10/2014. The 1^st opposite party issued a job sheet No.RNA141017047801 to the complainant. The touch pad of the mobile was defective and stopped its function. The 2^nd opposite party is its manufacturer. As the opposite party did not repaired and delivered the mobile, he send a registered lawyer notice to both the opposite parties on 08/12/2014 and the same was not even replied by the 1^st opposite party and the lawyer notice to the 2^nd opposite party was returned as ‘addressee left’.

            Petitioner further alleged that at the time of entrustment, the 1^st opposite party informed that the repaired handset will be delivered within one week but even after repeated demands and requests the 1^st opposite party didn’t deliver the same. The petitioner averred that the 1^st opposite party didn’t carry out the service correctly and properly. It is the responsibility of the 1^st opposite party to rectify and return the mobile within the specified period. This acts of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on their part and caused much inconvenience, irreparable loss, injury and mental agony. Hence this petition.

            After receiving notice, the 1^st opposite party did not appear or filed version hence set ex-parte and the 1^st notice of the 2^nd opposite party returned as ‘left’ after that the notice in the correct address is still await. But the petitioner had already informed the 2^nd opposite party about the problem with the phone and also the case filed against them. He has informed them the number, posting date of the case etc. and produced the print out of e-mail correspondence. We presumed that opposite party No. 2 notice duly served and not appeared. Hence set ex-parte.

            At the time of evidence, petitioner filed chief affidavit and produced four documents which were marked as Ext. A1 to A4. Ext. A1 is the job sheet, Ext. A2 is the lawyer notice, Ext.s A3 and A4 are acknowledgment card and returned lawyer notice. While perusing the Ext.s, it is seen that complainant has entrusted the mobile with the opposite party and they have not returned the same. In  Ext. A1 the column for estimated cost is not seen filled ie. the cost for repair is not mentioned. For the petitioner non-delivery of the mobile even after 4 months is not affordable. This negligence and delay cannot be justified. Nowadays, due to the non-functioning of the mobile, one could not know what is happening around him and to his dear and near. In short mobile can be considered as an essential part of human life. This inordinate delay of 4 months for repair is not excusable.

            Petitioner further averred that even after receiving the lawyer notice, both opposite parties have not replied or complied with his demands and this amounts to deficiency in service. Opposite parties have not appeared or challenged the averments of the petitioner and the veracity of the documents. Hence it stands unchallenged and proved. Petitioner has not produced invoice to show the price of mobile, date of purchase and also the warranty period. Hence we could not allow the prayer as such and he is not entitled for or refund to get it repaired at free of cost. Moreover nothing has been produced by the complainant to show his actual loss in order to demand compensation for Rs.20,000/-. Hence we fix Rs.3,000/- as compensation which we feel just and proper. We are also of the view that the above said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service causing much inconvenience and mental agony to the petitioner.

            In the result, the following order is passed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered to deliver the mobile phone defect free after receiving the reasonable charge from the complainant and to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as compensation for his sufferings and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the amount will carry 9% interest per annum from the date of default till payment.           

Dated this the 31^st day of  October, 2016

Date of filing: 26/02/2015

SD/-MEMBER                              SD/-  PRESIDENT                      SD/- MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Copy of job sheet

A2. Copy of lawyer notice sent to opposite parties

A3. Acknowledgement card

A4. Returned lawyer notice

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant:

None

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None                                                                         

Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT