IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday, the 31st day of May, 2016
Filed on 30..12..2015
Present
1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No. 374/2015
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Subhash. K. P. 1. Sri. Santhosh, Proprietor
Kalambul House Radio Centre Cellular Service
Mannancherry CCNB Road, Mullackal
Alappuzha – 688 534 Alappuzha – 688 011
(By Adv. Abhilash. C. Soman)
2. Sri. Jibin, Salesman -do-
3. Sri. Neenesh, Narayana Telecom
Pulimoottil Trade Center
Ammankovil Street
Mullackal, Alappuzha
4. Gionee, Syntech Technology
Pvt. Ltd., E-9 Block No. B – 1
Ground Floor, Mohan Co-operative
Industrial Estate, Madhura Road
New Delhi – 110 044
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE. D (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-
The complainant who is a physically disabled person purchased a Lenova P-70 mobile phone for an amount of Rs.13,000/- from the first opposite party on 17.11.2015. Two days after the date of purchase the said phone became defective and the first opposite party replaced it by a Gionee M-4 hand set and the second opposite party assured the complainant that the said Gionee hand set is much better and user friendly than Lenova P-70 and accordingly the complainant purchased the said Gionee hand set on 21.11.2015 for an amount of Rs.14,850/-. At the time of purchase the opposite parties informed the complainant that in case of any manufacturing defect, it should be informed within 7 days to get it replaced. But the said Gionee phone was not working properly from the date of purchase of the phone and on 23.11.2015, the complainant entrusted the phone to the first opposite party for getting it replaced. But the opposite parties failed to replace a phone. Thereafter the complainant filed a complaint before the Alappuzha South Police Station. But the grievance of the complainant has not been redressed. Thereafter the complainant sent a legal notice on 8.12.2015, but in vain. Hence the complaint is filed seeking either to replace the mobile phone or to refund the price along with compensation and costs.
2. Notices were served to the opposite parties, but they did not file any version and hence the opposite parties 1 to 4 were set ex-parte.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Exts.A1 to A4 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 opposite parties?
2) Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings?
5. Issues 1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a Lenova mobile phone from the first opposite party on 17.11.2015, but the phone became defective within 2 days from the date of purchase. When the defect was intimated to the first opposite party they replaced the said phone with a Gionee Mobile phone on21.11.2015. But said Gionee phone was also not working properly and the mobile phone was entrusted to the first opposite party for getting it replaced. But the opposite party failed to provide a new phone to the complainant, even though the said defect was intimated within 7 days. Hence this complaint filed.
6. The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Ext.A1 to A4 were marked. Ext.A1 is the receipt from South Police Station, Ext.A2 is the copy of the complaint before the S.I. of Police, Mannancherry, Ext.A3 is the bill for Rs.14,850/- and Ext.A4 is the acknowledgement card. From the documents, it is clear that the product became defective immediately after the date of purchase and the complainant has entrusted the phone to the opposite parties for getting it replaced within days from the date of purchase. It is also evident from the documents that the complainant filed a complaint before the concerned Police station and also sent a legal notice to the opposite party but in vain. The opposite parties have not shown any earnest effort to redress the grievance of the complainant. The allegation of the complainant has been proved by supporting documents. It is pertinent to note that the product became defective within 2 days from the date of purchase and the product is with the first opposite party. Since the opposite parties failed to replace the product or refund the price even after getting intimation, amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore the opposite parties are liable to refund the price of the mobile phone along with compensation and costs. The complainant who is physically disabled has sustained much mental agony and inconvenience and loss due to the act of the opposite parties. Therefore he is also entitled to get compensation. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the same. So the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund an amount of Rs.13,000/- (Rupees thirteen thousand only) to the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of May, 2016.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Receipt from South Police Station
Ext.A2 - Copy of the complaint before the S.I. of Police, Mannancherry
Ext.A3 - Bill for Rs.14,850/-
Ext.A4 - Acknowledgement card
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To.
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
