DATE OF FILING : 8.4.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.BINDHU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.96/2011
Between
Complainant : Sanumon K.S.,
Kunniniyil House,
Pulickthotti P.O.,
Vannappuram, Idukki District.
(By Adv: Thomas Sebastian)
And
Opposite Party : Shamon,
K.K.B. Mobile Servicing,
Opposite Village Office,
Thodupuzha,
Idukki District.
O R D E R
SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER )
The complainant had purchased K10 model Karbonn Mobile phone from Sims Mobile and Electronics on 10.6.2010 for Rs.4,500/-. The set have one year warranty from the date of purchase, the warranty was offered by United Telelinks Pvt. Ltd.. The set became complaint on 11.12.2010 onwards. The petitioner entrusted the mobile set for servicing to the authorised service centre of United Telelinks Pvt. Ltd., that is the opposite party. As per the warranty, the complainant have the right to receive service from the opposite party. But the opposite party had not repaired the set. They said that it became useless and they were ready to give another set, but the offering of opposite party is not fulfilled. The complainant approached the opposite party in many time but the opposite party could not gave the new set to him. On 11.12.2011, the petitioner had sent an advocate notice to the opposite party. The opposite party not given a reply. Hence the petitioner filed this petition alleged unfair trade practice and deficiency of service against the opposite party.
2. In spite of notice the opposite party was absent and called exparte.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
4. No oral evidence adduced by both the parties. Exts. P1 to P4 marked on the side of the complainant.
5. The POINT :- The complainant produced documentary evidence. The warranty paper copy is marked as Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is the receipt given by the opposite party when the mobile set is taken for servicing. Ext.P3 is the legal notice copy issued to the opposite party. Ext.P4 is the postal receipt for Ext.P3. The complainant purchased the disputed mobile set on 10.6.2010, it became defective on 11.12.2010, after only 6 months the set became defective. Ext.P2 shows the acceptance of mobile set for repair. Ext.P1 warranty paper shows 1 year warranty. The opposite
(cont.....2)
- 2 -
party is the authorised servicing agency of the company. The complainant could not get his set after repairing, he enquired the opposite party in many times. The opposite party is not responded his legal notice. Only a short period the complainant used the mobile set, marketing of such a low quality product is an unfair trade practice. As an authorised servicing centre of mobile manufacturing company, they were responsible to rectify the defects of mobile set. We find service deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to give a new mobile set of K10 model Karbonn to the complainant or pay Rs.4,500/-. The opposite party is also directed to give Rs.1,000/- as compensation to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of May, 2011
Sd/-
SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)
Sd/-
I agree SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
Nil.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - Copy of the warranty card.
Ext.P2 - Copy of the receipt issued by the opposite party dated 12.12.2010.
Ext.P3 - Copy of the legal notice issued to the opposite party dated 11.2.2011.
Ext.P4 - Postal receipt for Ext.P3.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
