IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday, the 31st day of October, 2011
Filed on 17/03/2011
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
CC/No. 92/2011
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Roshin. P.K. 1. The Proprietor, P.K.G. Agencies
S/o K.K. Prabhakaran Muttom Bazaar, Cherthala – 688 524
Koovakkatt Chira (By Adv. K. S. Hariharaputhran)
Velorvattom, CMC – 1
Cherthala P.O 2. The Proprietor, New Mobile World
Boat Jetty Road, Alappuzha
3. Sri. Sajeer, Proprietor, Tech Life India
33/1983 B, Arakkadav Road
Vennala, , Kochi,
Eranakulam – 682 028
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBR)
Sri.Roshin P.K. is the complainant and he filed this complaint before the Forum on 17.3.2011. The allegations are as follows:- On 7.1.2010, he had purchased a Mobile set – e’ Touch Mobile from the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.4851/-. At the time of the purchase of the said set, the first opposite party has assured him that the set is a special one and will not became defective within 5 years and that the set has warranty for a period of one year. But within a short period, the set became defective and not functioning. He had contacted the first opposite party with the set and explained the matter. 1st opposite party directed him to contact the 3rd opposite party, since the 3rd opposite party had supplied the set to the 1st opposite party. Since the 3rd opposite party has no role in this matter, he contacted the 2nd opposite party for relief. But he has not obtained any relief from the opposite parties. First opposite party is solely responsible for this matte, either to replace, the set with a new one or payment of the set. Hence this complaint.
2. Notices were issued to the parties. 1st opposite party entered appearance through counsel. 2nd opposite party accepted the notice. But they have not appeared before the Forum. So they are declared as exparte – 3rd opposite party’s notice returned, with endorsement – left – 3rd opposite party also declared as exparte.
3. First opposite party has filed objection against the complaint. In the objection of the first opposite party, it is stated that the allegations of 5 years guarantee alleged by the complainant is not true, and that the complainant has purchased the said set from them on 19/2009 and it has warranty for one year. It is further stated that the complainant has used the set in a rough nature and defect was occurred due to that, and that the set has not became defective within the warranty period. If the set has any defect during the warranty period, 3rd opposite party is solely responsible for that. It is stated that since the 2nd opposite party is the authorized service centre, the complainant can approach the 2nd opposite party to rectify the defects of the set, if any, and 3rd opposite party is liable either to pay the amount of the set or a new set to the complainant.
4. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the amount of the set?
3) Compensation and costs?
5. Issues 1to 3:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of his case and produced documents in evidence – Exts.A1 to A3 marked. Ext.A1 is the original sale letter No.916 dt. 7.1.2010 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant at the time of the sale of the set, for a sum of Rs.4851/-. Ext.A2 is the proforma dt. 2.12.2010 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant at the time of the inspection of the said set. It shows that the set was dead (Board problem). The proforma further shows the details of the specifications of the set. Ext.A3 is the warranty card – it shows that the period of the warranty is for one year (12 months). First opposite party has not filed proof affidavit and not produced any document and that they were absent at the time fixed for hearing.
6. We have heard the case in detail and proceeded the matter for a fair adjudication of the case. It is alleged by the complainant that he had purchased the said set from the first opposite party for a sum of Rs.4851/- vide sale letter dt. 7.1.2010 (Ext.A1) and that the opposite party assured the complainant that the set will be in good quality and it will not become defective for the next five years. But contrary to the assurance, the set became defective and not working and defect occurred within a short period from the date of its purchase. The defect occurred within the warranty period. The complainant contacted the first and second opposite parties for relief. The receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party (Ext.A2) at the time of receiving set for rectification, noted that the set is dead. The complainant has not obtained any positive relief from the first and second opposite parties either to rectify the defect permanently or obtain the price of the set to him. The opposite parties 1 and 2 have drag on the matter unnecessarily and not given any sincere effort to the complainant. On an overall readings of the complaint, objection filed by the 1st opposite party and documents of the complainant, it can be seen that the first and second opposite parties had not taken any necessary steps for the grievances of the complainant in connection with the defective set. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are fully bound to cure the defects of the set, since the set became defective within the warranty period . The objection raised by the first opposite party cannot be accepted as valid ground for denial of rectifying the defects of the set, since it has no merit and have no bona fides. Since the set has manufacturing defects, the opposite parties are fully entitled to return the price of the set to the complainant. Considering the deficiency in service and negligence and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties, we are of the view that the opposite parties are bound to pay compensation and costs to the complainant. In this case, after perusal of the entire matter, we are of the view that the whole actions taken by the opposite parties are highly illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized and it will come within the purview of the unfair trade practice. In this respect, after verifying the whole matter, we are of the further view that the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite parties are to be treated as genuine. So the complaint is to be allowed as prayed for. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, we hereby direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay back the price of the set ie. Rs.4851/- (Rupees four thousand eight hundred and fifty one only) to the complainant, after collecting the defective set mentioned above from him, and pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for his mental agony, pain, harassment, physical strain, inconvenience and loss due to the deficiency in service, grossest negligence and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties by way of purposeful refusal to rectify the defects of the set in time and negligence to issue a new one, since the defects of the set occurred within the warranty period. We direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant as costs of this proceedings. We further ordered that in case, the opposite parties 1 and 2 are not complied with this order, they shall pay interest at the rate of 12% for the said amount of Rs.4851/- from the date of this order till the date of the repayment of the amounts to the complainant. We further ordered that the opposite parties shall comply with this order within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Complaint allowed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day October, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan: Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah: Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Original sale letter No.916 dt. 7.1. 2010
Ext.A2 - Proforma dt. 2.12.2010
Ext.A3 - Warranty card
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
