BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

            Dated this the 28^th day of February 2018.

                                                                                                Filed on : 15.05.2015

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                                                 President.

Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                                 Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                                      Member.

                        C.C.No. 295/2015

                                   Between

                                    O R D E R

Sheen Jose, Member

1.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant had purchased a Karbonn Titanium X mobile phone from the 1^st opposite party on 26.08.2014 at a price of Rs.9999/-.  It was manufactured and marketed by the 3^rd opposite party manufacturer. The above phone showed some defects right from the beginning.  While operating the mobile phone, it becomes overheated therefore he could not use the same and the phone became defunct within one week from the date of its purchase.  The complainant had approached the 1^st opposite party for curing the defect of the mobile handset and he entrusted mobile handset to them. The 1^st opposite party returned the mobile handset after 15 days and assured the complainant that all defects were cured. But, the mobile phone again showed the very same defects. As per the instructions from the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre of the 3^rd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party returned the mobile handset to the complainant after one week and informed him that all defects were cured. While using the phone, the display screen of the mobile handset had exploded and the mobile phone was broken.  Thus the phone became defunct. The complainant again approached the 2^nd opposite party for replacement of the display screen of the mobile handset. The 2^nd opposite party assured him that the defects will be rectified within short period, but they did not do anything to cure the defects. The complainant was not holding the mobile phone for the last 8 months. Due to the non-availability of mobile handset, the complainant had faced a lot of difficulties and inconvenience in his profession. Thus the complainant is before us seeking directions against the opposite parties to refund the price of the disputed mobile handset to the complainant and to pay compensation for the inconvenience suffered and costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties.

2)      Version filed by the 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party contended in their version that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The mobile phone handset purchased by the complainant is manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party Carbon Mobile Ltd and the responsibility for the warranty service of the mobile handset is with the manufacturer.  The 1^st opposite party was not aware about the abnormalities and malfunctioning of the mobile handset as alleged in his complaint. The 1^st opposite party is the retail store where the mobile handset issue was sold.  The 1^st opposite party has no after sale service centre and they do not undertake any service of the mobile handset.  Although after the sales service, is not the responsibility of the 1^st opposite party, the 1^st opposite party used to co-ordinate between customers and the manufacturers of the concerned products when any issue occurs regarding the products sold by the 1^st opposite party.  Such a service is provided to customers free of cost.  In such circumstances it may be true that the 1^st opposite party might have coordinated the complainant herein and the manufacturer of the mobile handset in issue to redress the alleged defects of the handset.  The 1^st opposite party is not aware of the repairs if any made to the mobile handset in issue. The allegation that the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party again regarding many complaints of the mobile handset in issue is false and hence denied. The 1^st opposite party herein does not have any authorized service centres as alleged in his complaint. As the 1^st opposite party is only a retailer which sells a wide range of products, there were no deficiency in service happened on the side of the 1^st opposite party. In fact it is the complainant who had dragged the 1^st opposite party before this Forum unnecessarily and the complainant is therefore liable to pay the costs to this opposite party.  

3)      Despite of service of notice from this Forum the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties opted not to contest the matter for their own reasons which were not stated or explained. Proof affidavit has been filed by the complainant and he was examined as PW1. Exbt. A1 to A3 were marked on his side. No oral or documentary evidences adduced by the 1^st opposite party.  Heard the complainant who appeared in person and Counsel for the 1^st opposite party.  

4)      Issues came up for considerations are as follows:

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund the price of the disputed mobile handset from the opposite parties?
3. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

5)      Issue No. (i)

The complainant had purchased a Karbon Titaninum X Mobile handset from the 1^st opposite party on 26.08.2014 at a price of Rs.9999/-. The above said mobile phone was manufactured and marketed by the 3^rd opposite party. The Exbt. A1 original purchase bill dated 26.08.2014 clearly shows the above said contention of the complainant is true.  According to the complainant the mobile phone had showed some defects right from the beginning of its purchase.  While using the mobile phone it became overheated. Subsequently the same became defunct. He approached the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre of the 3^rd opposite party, the manufacturer but they could not rectify the disputed mobile handset. Exbt. A2 Service call note issued by the 3^rd opposite party shows that the complainant entrusted his mobile handset with the 2^nd opposite party on 05.03.2015 for servicing. As per the Job Service note the phone became defunct due to touch screen broken. Exbt. A3 is the email communication between the 2^nd opposite party and the complainant dated on 14.05.2015 which shows that the 2^nd opposite party assured the complainant that the defective mobile phone will be rectified and it will be handed over to him within a short period.

6)      From the facts of this complaint, we could understand that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone on 26.08.2014 and the same was defunct within 7 months ie., Exbt.A2 shows that on 05.03.2015 the complainant had entrusted the mobile handset to the 3^rd opposite party authorized service centre of the manufacturer. At that time the mobile phone was under the warranty period provided by the 3^rd opposite party manufacturer.  On going through the complaint and Exbt. Email communication we find that the 2^nd opposite party did not entertain the complaint of the complainant.  The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are liable to provide the service to the complainant when the same was under the warranty period. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties miserably failed to attend genuine grievances of the complainant. The complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, financial loss… etc due to the non-availability of the mobile handset and due to the negligent attitude of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. The above act of the opposite parties amounted to gross deficiency in service happened on the side of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are liable to compensate the same. We are of the opinion that the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are liable either to replace the disputed mobile handset with a new one or to refund its price to the complainant.  In this case, we think that the complainant is entitled to get refund the price of the disputed mobile handset from the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. Thus the issue Nos. (i) and (ii) are decided in favour of the complainant.  

7)       Issue No. (iii)

We find that there is serious deficiency in service happened on the side of the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  The facts stated above shows that the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships financial loss… etc. which calls for compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant. We award an amount of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.3000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant.   

8)      In the result we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:

1. The 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund an amount of Rs.9,999/- to the complainant which being the price of the disputed handset as per the Exbt. A1 Retail invoice.
2. The 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties shall also jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs. 3000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

The above orders shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry 12% interest p.a. from the 31^st day of receipt of this order till the date of payment. 

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28^th day of February 2018.

Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member

Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member

Forwarded by Order

Senior Superintendent

Date of Despatch

                             By Hand    :

                             By Post      :

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits:    Nil

          Depositions        :

                   PW1           :: Abhilash Raveendran