BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 233/2010 Filed on 29.07.2010

Dated : 16.02.2011

Complainant:

H. Babu Chandran, Divya Bhavan, Ellukkode, Kalliyoor P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(Appeared in person)

Opposite parties :

1. Redington India Ltd., T.C 15/1805(3), 1^st Floor, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. Reliance Communications, T.C 20/2422, Sastha Building, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

Addl. Opposite party :

3. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd., Excellence Centre, 415/02, Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon.

This O.P having been heard on 01.02.2011, the Forum on 16.02.2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Complainant purchased a mobile phone from the 2^nd opposite party on 06.07.2010 for an amount of Rs. 1,300/-. But the phone became defective on that day itself. The complainant informed the matter to the opposite party on the next day of its purchase date itself. Opposite party directed the complainant to visit the 1^st opposite party, their authorized service centre at Vazhuthacaud. Thereafter they informed the complainant that they could not do anything without the permission of their zonal office, Chennai. And after 15 days they told the complainant that it has to be decided by the Motorola company at Singapore. But till date the opposite parties did not return the phone to the complainant. Complainant alleges that the 2^nd opposite party wilfully sold the defective phone to the complainant and that act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice. And also he alleges that there has been deficiency in service from the side of 1^st opposite party, the authorized service centre.

Opposite parties in this case accepted notice of this complaint issued from this Forum. But they did not appear before this Forum to contest the case. Hence opposite parties remain exparte.

Points to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Points (i) & (ii):- To prove his contentions the complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced 2 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 & P2. The affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged since the opposite parties are ex-parte. Ext. P1 is invoice dated 06.07.2010 issued by the 2^nd opposite party. As per the invoice the complainant had paid Rs. 1,300/- for the purchase of the Motorola phone. Ext. P2 is the customer receipt dated 09.07.2010 issued by the 1^st opposite party Redington India Ltd. From this document we find that the phone became defective within two days of its purchase. The disputed phone is still in the custody of the 1^st opposite party. Hence in this case the procedure under Sec. 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act is not necessary. Through these documents and evidences the complainant has proved his case that the opposite parties sold a defective phone to the complainant and did not turn up to cure the defects or settle the matter amicably. They put forwarded lame excuses to the complainant. The act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the opposite parties are liable to compensate their acts. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 2,500/- as compensation to the complainant along with Rs. 1,000/- as costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 16^th day of February 2011.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 233/2010

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of invoice No. 588 dated 06.07.2010 issued by 2^nd

opposite party.

P2 - Copy of the customer receipt dated 09.07.2010 issued by 1^st

opposite party.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb