BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 16/06/2012
Date of Order : 13/02/2013
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 360/2012
Between
Binu, S/o. Jacob, | :: | Complainant |
Kandakkadavu, Punnackal, Kochi -8. |
| (By Adv. Lima Roy, 1st Floor Faizal Chambers, Pulleppady Cross Road, Cochin – 18.) |
And
1. Samsung Company Ltd., | :: | Opposite Parties |
27/224, B & C Mithun Towers, K.P. Vallon Road, Kadavanthra, Kochi – 682 020. 2. The Manager, Essar Telecom Retail Ltd., Sunil's Building, Opp. L.G. Towers, Thoppumpady, Kochi – 682 005. 3. The Proprietor, Excel Electronics, Shop No. C.B. First Floor, Penta Menaka, Kochi – 35. |
| (Op.pts. 1 & 3 absent)
(Service of notice of the 2nd op.pty has not been completed) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The undisputed facts of the complainant's case are as follows :-
The complainant purchased a mobile handset from the 2nd opposite party, which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The price of the mobile handset was Rs. 7,249/-. One year warranty has been provided by the 1st opposite party. The complainant enhanced the period of warranty for another year on payment of Rs. 99/- on 16-01-2012. The mobile phone became defunct after a few days from the date of purchase. The complainant approached the 2nd opposite party to get the mobile handset repaired. At the instance of the 2nd opposite party, the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party. The complainant entrusted the mobile handset with the 3rd opposite party for its repairs. The 3rd opposite party failed to rectify the defects properly. The set again became defective within a few days. On 27-04-2012 onwards, the mobile phone was not working. On 30-04-2012, the 2nd opposite party agreed to service the phone and deliver the same. On receipt of the phone after service, the same defects persisted. Thus, the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice demanding to replace the mobile handset and the refund of the amount for extended warranty. The opposite parties accepted the notice, but there was no response. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the price of the gadget and to replace the same with a new one together with compensation and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. In spite of receipt of notice from this Forum, the 1st and 3rd opposite parties did not respond to the same for reasons not stated or explained. The service of notice of the 2nd opposite party has not been completed. Proof affidavit has been filed by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on his side. Heard the counsel for the complainant.
3. The points that came up for consideration are as follows :-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the price of the mobile hand set refunded together with the amount expended towards extended warranty?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the mobile handset with a new one?
Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?
4. Point Nos. i. & ii. :- Ext. A1 goes to show that the complainant purchased a mobile handset from the 2nd opposite party, which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. Ext. A2 would show that the complainant extended the warranty for one year in addition to the original warranty for one year. According to the complainant, time and again he had to approach the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties to get the mobile handset repaired. But the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties failed to rectify the defects of the same. On 28-03-2012, the complainant caused Ext. A4 notice to the 2nd opposite party to which there was no response in spite of receipt of the same. Nothing is forthcoming on the part of the opposite parties as to the reason for the recurring defects of the mobile handset of the complainant or the repair of the same. The recurring defects of the mobile handset go to show that the same suffers from inherent manufacturing defect. Uncontroverted. The complainant is either entitled to get replacement of the mobile handset or to get its price refunded.
5. Point No. iii. :- The primary grievance of the complainant having been met sufficiently by the above direction, we think that an order for compensation is not called for. However, the complainant had to approach this Forum to get his grievances redressed to which the opposite parties turned a deaf ear which calls for costs of the proceedings. We fix it at Rs. 1,000/-.
6. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :-
The 1st and 3rd opposite parties shall jointly and severally replace the mobile handset of the complainant with a new one according to the choice of the complainant. The difference in price, if any shall be met by either parties. The complainant is directed to return the mobile handset to the 1st and 3rd opposite parties simultaneously.
The 1st and 3rd opposite parties shall jointly and severally also pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 13th day of February 2012.
Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of the tax invoice dt. 03-11-2011 |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of the retail invoice dt. 03-12-2011 |
“ A3 | :: | Copy of the lawyer notice dt. 28-03-2012 |
“ A4 | :: | A Postal receipt |
“ A5 | :: | Service request dt. 30-04-2012 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
=========
