O R D E R

Smt. ShajithaBeevi.N (Member I):

                   Shri.K.G.Santhosh has filed this complaint before the Commission   U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 with request to getting relief from the opposite parties 1 to 3.

                    2. The case of the complainant is as follows:- 

In the complaint, it is averred that the 1^st opposite party is the distributer of the products manufacture by the 3^rd opposite party.And the 2^ndopposite party is the service manager of the 3rd opposite party. On 10/8/2017 the complainant purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party from the 1^st opposite party for total prize of Rs.15,900/- the averment madein the complaint the 1^st opposite party has made believe the complainant that, the products is having one year warranty from the date of purchase. But the mobile phone became defective after a few days of the purchase, hence the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for curing the defect of the phone. But the 2^nd opposite partyevaded from curing the defects by saying lame excuses. It is further alleged that by knowing the Manufacturing defects of the product, the 1^st opposite party fraudulently suppressed the defects and sold the same to the complainant thereby the act of the 1^st opposite party is amounts unfair trade practice. It is further alleged that the complainant repeatedly informed the defect of the phone and requested to cure the defects but the opposite parties failed to cure the same, thereby the complainant sought the relief as either replace anew phone instead of the defective phone or in the alternative direct the opposite parties to pay the price of the phone along with the 12% interest from the date of purchase.

3. Aggrieved by the deficiency in service of the opposite parties and seeking damages from them, the complainant filed this complaint before this commission.

    Originally the complainant filed the above complaint against 1&2 opposite parties.Later additional 3^rd opposite party was impleaded as per Order in I.A.No: 30/2018.  Notices were issued to all ops .But except 1^st opposite party the other ops appeared before the commission and they filed detailed version denying the allegations in the complaint. The 1^st opposite party not turned up before the commission and did not file any version. . Due to the non-appearance of the 1^st opposite party, the opposite party was set ex-parte on 29/11/2017.

                   4. In the version the 2^ndopposite party would submit that the complainant mobile phone was received for service on 17/11/2017 and checked the complaint. The phone was repaired by PBA, TAPE AND LCD was replaced and the mobile phone was returned to the full satisfaction of the complainant on 23/11/2017. Therefore he prayed to dismiss the complaint against him.

           5. The 3^rd opposite party also contented the dismissal of the complaint by denying all allegations made against them by a lengthy version. Their main contentions that there was no cause of action against them because it is not a consumer dispute at all. They further contended that the commission has lack of jurisdiction entertain this matter. It is also contented by the 3^rd opposite party that when the enquired about the matter to the 2^nd opposite party there were no issue /defects found in the product and defect found in the mobile phone happened due to mis-handling improper handling etc. So the 3^rd opposite party stated that they are not liable to compensate the complainant and they also prayed the dismissal of the complaint 

                  6. Considering the contention raised by the parties, this commission raised the following issues for consideration.

1. Whether there is any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation as prayed for?
3. Relief and Cost.

                    7. The complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of his case. He examined as PW1 and produced documents in evidence and that were marked as Exhibit A1 and Mo1. On the side of 3^rd ops alone conducted cross examination of PW1. The 2^ndopposite party did not cross examine the PW1. The 2^nd and 3^rdopposite parties did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary evidence.

8. :- The 1^st opposite parties did not appear before the commission even after they received the notice and they did not file any version. .hence allegations against made against the 1^st opposite party is remaining un-rebutted. Apart from filing a version, the 2^nd opposite party failed to substantiate their case by cross examining the witness. And more over he failed to adduce any evidence.In his version it can be seen that some parts of the mobile phone were replaced from these statements in the absence of any further evidence we can reach a conclusion that the defect of thephone was happened due to some manufacturing defects. The complainant’s case is that even the date of the complaint the defect of the phone is remaining uncured. So the possibility of manufacturing defects cannot be dismissed. Hence point No: 1 is found against the opposite party. Being so, the point No: 2 can be answered in favour of the complainant.In the light of above discussions were are of the view that the above complaint is perfectly maintainable before this commission and thus the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for 

                            In the result, for the gross negligence and deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties, the opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to replace a new phone having the same price to the complainant within one month receipt of this order. Failing which the complainant is entitled to realize an amount ofRs.15,900/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred only) along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of this order till realization . Amount can be realize from the opposite parties by due process of law.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^thday ofMarch,2021.

                                                                                                                        (Sd/-)

                                    Smt. ShajithaBeevi. N

                                                                                                                    (Member I)   

Sri. George Baby (President):  (Sd/-)

Sri.NishadThankappan (Member II) :(Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1:K.G. Santhosh Kumar

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1:Copy of the bill dated: 10/08/2017. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.

Copy to:- (1) K.G. Santhosh Kumar,

Kuttiyanickal House,

Konni P.O, Pathanamthitta.

(2) The Manager,

QRS Retail Limited,

21/786-2, Azhoor Road, Pathanamthitta.

(3) The Service Manager,

Samsung Service Centre,

SNDP Building, Near Collectrate,

(4) Samsung India Electronics,

A-25, Ground Floor,

Front Tower,

Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate,

New Delhi – 110044.

(5) The Stock File.