IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 31st day of March, 2016
Filed on 16.09.2015
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.278/2015
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Renny, S/o Cletus 1. Samsung India Electronics
Perumuttathu Veedu Pvt. Ltd., A-25 Ground
Pattanakkad Panchayath Floor Front Tower
Cherthala Mohan Co-operative
(By Adv. P.S. Anaghan) Industrial Estate
New Delhi – 110 044
2. Sri. Unnikrishnan, Proprietor
Cellular World, Municipal
Shopping Complex, Cherthala
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a mobile phone from the second opposite party manufactured by the first opposite party on 9.6.2014 for an amount of Rs.9,200/-. The opposite parties assured one year warranty for the product and issued the warranty card. The phone became defective on June first week of 2015 and entrusted to the second opposite party for getting it repaired. But the second opposite party demanded an amount of Rs.5000/- towards repairing charges. Since the defect arose within the warranty period, the complainant refused to pay the amount. Then the second opposite party forced the complainant to take back the phone and issued a job cancellation receipt on 15.6.2015. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
2. Notice was served to the opposite parties, but they did not appear before the Forum, hence opposite parties 1and 2 set ex-parte.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Exts.A1 and A2 were marked.
4. Considering the allegations of the complainant, the Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs?
5. Points 1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that he complainant purchased a phone from the second opposite party manufactured by the first opposite party on 9.6.2014 for an amount of Rs.9,200/. The product has one year warranty. According to the complainant on first week of June 2015 the phone became defective and entrusted to the service centre for repairing it, but they demanded an amount of Rs.5000/- towards repairing charges. Since the defect arose within the warranty period, the complainant is not willing to remit the amount. Hence the opposite party returned the phone without repairing. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
6. The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Exts.A1 and A2 were marked. Ext.A1 is the cash bill dated 9.6.2014 and Ext.A2 is the job cancellation statement. Ext.A1 shows that the complainant purchased the phone on 9.6.2014. According to the complainant the product has one year warranty ie. the product is under warranty up to 9.6.2015. Therefore the warranty has expired on 9.6.2015. In Ext.A2 it is stated that since the customer is not willing to pay the estimated amount the job was cancelled on 15.6.2015. It is pertinent to note that Ext.A2 was issued by R. Logic Technology Services Pvt. Ltd., Cochin who was not a party. The documents produced by the complainant would not show that the defect arose within the warranty period. There is absolutely no evidence before us to believe that the defect arose within the warranty period, hence the complaint fails. We can’t find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore the complaint is to be dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of March, 2016.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
SD/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Cash bill dated 9.6.2014
Ext.A2 - Job cancellation statement
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
