CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 26^th day of March, 2013.

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 12/02/2013

CC /41/2013

Gopalakrishnan,

S/o. Chami, Vapparakkal house,

Parasseri P.O, Pin – 678 631 - Complainant

(By Adv. K.Dhananjayan)

Vs

1. Shafeeq, - Opposite parties

Prop: Kargil Mobiles,

Kongad, Palakkad – 678 001

2. M/s. United Tele Links Pvt. Ltd.,

(UTL), Bangalore, No. 38/13

HAL 2^nd Street of 7^th Main Road,

Appa Reddy Palya, Indira Nagar,

Bangalore Pin – 580 038.

( Rep. by Authorised Signatory/Manager)

3. Authorised Signatory/Manager,

M/s. United Tele Links Pvt. Ltd.,

(UTL), Bangalore, No. 38/13

HAL 2^nd Street of 7^th Main Road,

Appa Reddy Palya, Indira Nagar,

Bangalore Pin – 580 038.

O R D E R

BY SMT. PREETHA.G.NAIR, MEMBER

Complaint in brief :-

The Complainant has purchased a mobile telephone handset from opposite party no.1 on 21/11/2012. The 2^nd opposite party is the company. Being a corporate entity 2^nd opposite party is represented by 3^rd opposite party. The details of the mobile handset he has purchased from opposite party no.1 is as follows.

1. Dual Sim Dual Standby.

    

2. Model No. Karbonn K.102+

I MEI -1 911209356855341

IMEI - 2 911209356855358 by paying Rs. 1500/-. The complainant has insisted for the issuance of the cash bill for the amount. But opposite party no.1 has categorically told the complainant that since they have given the user manual and warranty card with the affixture of manufacturer's label and seal on it, it is not required and he do not have the habit of issuing the cash bill to any of the customers. But the warranty card issued by the opposite party no.1 bears the date of purchase, seal of the dealer i.e 1^st opposite party and signature of him. It bears the label of Karbonn model number and IMEI numbers of the mobile handset of the complainant. Since from the date of its purchase within 15 days itself the mobile handset became defective. The problems faced by the complainant during the use of the mobile handset are

1. The Screen display of the mobile handset became disappeared.

2. Facility to send SMS and other visible screen display has been vanished from the screen.

3. Poor reception in outgoing and incoming calls.

4. As the entire screen display has been lost, it gives a lot of hardship to the complainant because he could not save the numbers and stored it in the contacts names and the messages could not be saved and retrieved.

The defect of the mobile handset has been intimated to the opposite party no.1 by the complainant. But instead of curing the genuine grievance of the complainant, the opposite party no.1 has abused him with impolite and filthy words and gestures. The act of opposite party no.1 alone would amount to the deficiency of service. The complainant was using the mobile handset strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions and its restriction for usage contained and stated in the user manual and on the warranty card. Complainant stated that the mobile handset has never been either fallen in the surface or in the water on any occasion. The defects occurred on the mobile handset of the complainant is manufacturing defect. In the warranty card stating that one year warranty for the mobile phone handset and six months warranty for the battery, charger and accessories. The defects in the mobile handset have acquired well within the warranty period. On 14/12/2012 the complainant has approached the opposite party no.1 again to solve problem amicably. But the oppsite party no.1 abused the complainant and asked him to quit the shop and do whatever he likes. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile handset to a new one or to pay Rs. 2000/- and pay Rs. 25,000/- as damages for mental agony and cost of the proceedings.

All opposite parties absent. Hence name called and set exparte. Complainant filed chief affidavit along with the defective mobile handset. Ext. A1 and A2 marked on the side of complainant. Mobile handset marked as M.O.I.

Issues to be considered are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties ?

2. If so what is the relief and cost?

Issues I and II

We perused relevant documents on record. It is evident from Ext. A1 that the complainant has purchased the mobile handset from opposite party no.1 on 21/11/2012. In Ext. A1 mentioned that one year warranty for mobile phone (handset) and six months for batteries, charger and accessories. On the same page mentioned that “ How to avail of warranty service :- In order to obtain warranty service the customer needs to bring the equipment to UTL authorised service provider at the customer's own cost, together with all detachable parts, battery packs and charger. The opposite parties had not filed version and affidavit. No evidence was produces by the opposite parties to show that they directed the complainant to approach the UTL authorised service provider. According to the complainant within 15 days from the date of purchase itself the mobile handset became defective. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite parties. Further complainant stated that the cost of mobile handset was Rs. 1500/-. No documentary evidence produced by the complainant.

On verification of M.O.I the screen display completely not seen in the mobile handset. Partly seen the menu, exit and lock. The display of the mobile handset is an important function, without which no one could use the mobile handset and the purpose of which it has been purchased is defeated. All the opposite parties set exparte and the defects of the mobile handset is visible. So the complainant has not taken expert commission report to prove the manufacturing defect. According to the complainant defects of the mobile handset noted within the warranty period. But the opposite parties had not repaired or replaced the mobile handset. The non appearance of the opposite parties after receiving the notice would also amount to deficiency in service. In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

In the result complaint partly allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severaly liable to pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 2500/- (Rupees Two thousand Five hundred only) being the price of the mobile handset along with the compensation for mental agony and pay Rs. 1000/- ( Rupees one thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

On receipt of the ordered amount the complainant is directed to hand over the defective mobile handset to the opposite parties.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 26^th day of March, 2013. Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext. A1– Warranty card issued by 1^st opposite party for and on behalf of opposite parties 2 and 3 dtd. 21/11/2012.

Ext. A2 - User manual of the mobile hand set having model Karbonn K102+ Dual sim

Dual standby.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

M.O.I – The mobile handset.

Cost allowed

Rs. 1000/- (One Thousand only )allowed as cost of the proceedings.