DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 31st day of March 2011
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 30/09/2009
(C.C.No.133/2009)
Sunoj Paul
S/o.Poulose
Pandikudi House,
Thodukadu,
Kairadi Post,
Chittur Taluk. - Complainant
(By Adv.Sureshkumar)
V/s
Shaji,
S/o.Sulaiman,
Prop.Sha Mobiles
Sales and Service
Opp.Post Office, Nenmara
Chittur Taluk - Opposite party
(By Adv.Joy Kanhirathinchalil)
O R D E R
By Smt.BHANUMATHI A.K. MEMBER
The Complaint in brief :
The complainant had purchased a Samsung Mobile Prestige Model FM B220 product serial No.B220.356015/02/007932/1 at the cost of Rs.2300/- from the opposite party. At the time of purchasing, the opposite party believed the complainant that it is new model mobile manufactured by Samsung company and its performance is very good and it will get one year warranty. If any defect is to be found it will get service at any time or incurable defect found the mobile will replace with a new one.
After a few months of purchasing the mobile was not functioning. The complainant approached the opposite party to cure the defect, but he was not able to cure the defect. When the complainant demanded the opposite party to get the services he has not even cared the complainant and shouted to go any other service center. The opposite party insulted the complainant in front of other customers. The above act of opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on their part. So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite party to replace the defective mobile set or refund the value of the phone Rs.2300/- and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying all the contentions put forwarded by the complainant. They contents that the complainant had not purchased any mobile from the opposite party and he never approached the opposite party to repair the same. Opposite party contents that there is no misbehavior occurred from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant.
The complainant never demanded to repair the mobile set directly or in writing . Once the complainant has approached the opposite party to exchange his mobile with a new one from the opposite party. But there was dispute regarding the price of the mobile brought by him. Due to that vengeance the complaint was filed. Another contentions of the opposite party is that the manufacturer of the mobile phone is not a party in the proceedings. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
Both parties filed their respective affidavits and Ext.A1 and M.O.1 marked on the side of complainant. Commission Report which is marked as Ext.C1.
Issues to be considered are
1.Whether the mobile purchased by the complainant is a defective one
and whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the
opposite party ?
2.If so, what is the relief and costs complainant is entitled to get ?
Issue 1 & 2
Complaint is regarding the defective mobile phone which is purchased from the opposite party shop on 26/2/09 and issued warranty card for one year. At the time of purchasing, the opposite party assured that any problem is found it will get serviced and if incurable defect found the mobile will be replaced with new one. After a few months of purchasing the mobile started to show problems. The complainant approached opposite party to cure the defect, but he has not even cared and advised to go any other authorized service center and insulted the complainant infront of the other customers. So there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
The main contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has not purchased the disputed mobile from the opposite party as no cash bill is produced to show the same.
Ext.A1 is warranty card issued by the opposite party in the name of complainant. In the warranty card the product serial No. is written as B220, 356015/02/007932/1. The No. of the disputed mobile phone is same as the No. written in the warranty card. Hence it is clear that the disputed mobile phone is purchased from the opposite party. There is no dispute regarding the cost of the mobile phone. To prove the said mobile phone is defective an expert commissioner was appointed. In the report the commissioner clearly pointed out that the defect was happened due to the weakness of the power IC and battery.
Another contentions of the opposite party is that manufacturing company is not made a party in the proceedings. So the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.
The complainant has sought no relief from the manufacturing company. Further complainant has privity of contract with the opposite party only. The complaint is filed for misbehavior and deficiency of service from the shop owner to the complainant. In the version the opposite party admits that “once the complainant had came to his shop for exchange of his mobile but there was disputes regarding the price of the mobile brought by him”.
From the above discussion we are of the view that the mobile purchased by the complainant is a defective mobile and there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
In the result complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2300/- as cost of the mobile phone and Rs.2000/- for compensation for mental agony alongwith Rs.2000/- as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of March 2011
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Customer details cum warranty card dt.26/2/09
Ext.M.O.1 – Disputed mobile phone
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Nil
Court Exhibits
Ext.C1 – Commission Report filed by Kaja Hussain
Cost
Rs.2,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.
