This case coming on 30.09.2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri        K.V. Krishna appeared inperson for the Complainant and Sri S. Jagannadham, Advocate for the 1^st Opposite Party and the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties being exparte and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

                                                ORDER

        (As per Smt. K. Saroja Honourable Lady Member on behalf of the Bench)

1.       The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant had purchased a Videocon Mobile Phone V 1306, IMFI No.9100300003298854/910030003350879 for a sum of Rs. 1,850/- on 31.01.2011 and the 1^st Opposite Party issued a Cash Bill on the same day and also issued Warranty for a period of one year.   After some days the said mobile phone had given troubles and did not function properly.   Then the Complainant approached the 1^st Opposite Party to rectify the defects.   On the advice of the 1^st Opposite Party, the Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party and informed about the defects in the mobile phone i.e., the capacity/charging problem, cannot connect the charges on 2.8.2011.  On 08.09.2011 the 2^nd Opposite Party returned the mobile phone to the Complainant without rectifying defects in the mobile phone and issued the rejection note and handed over the mobile phone to the Complainant.    In spite of many requests made by the Complainant, the Opposite Parties did not refund the amount or rectified the defects in the said mobile phone.    Hence, this complaint.

2.       a) directing the Opposite Parties to replace the new working mobile phone in place of damaged piece or refund the cost of said mobile phone of Rs.1,850/- with accrued interest thereon at 18% p.a. from date of purchase i.e., 31.01.2011 till the date of payment ;

          b) to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards damages for the gross deficiency of service caused by the Opposite Party;

          c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards expenses and litigation charges;  

          d) For such other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

3.       The Opposite Parties 2 and 3 did not appear before this Forum.   Hence, they were set exparte and remained exparte.

4.       The 1^st Opposite Party strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from its counter.   The 1^st Opposite Party at the time of purchase of the mobile phone informed the Complainant that the warranty as per manufacture terms and conditions and at their respective authorized service centers only.   The Complainant did not approached the authorized service centre of manufacture.  Without having proper cause of action, the Complainant filed this case against 1^st Opposite Party.   After perusing the terms and conditions, the Complainant purchased the mobile phone now the Complainant suppressed material facts and filed this present complaint before this Forum.   So, they have no liability to pay any reliefs asked by the Complainant.

5.       At the time of enquiry, both Parties filed their affidavits as well as written arguments to support their contentions.    Heard the 1^st Opposite Party.   The Complainant did not appear before this Forum, inspite of several adjournments given to him for oral submissions.    Hence, treated as heard on behalf of the Complainant.    No documents were marked for the 1^st Opposite Party.

6.       ExA1 is the Cash Bill issued by the 1^st Opposite Party dated 31.01.2011 for an amount of Rs.1,850/-.   Ex.A2 is the Rejection Note issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party.    Ex.A3 is the warranty card issued by the 1^st Opposite Party who is the manufacturer of the said mobile phone.

7.       The fact shown from Ex.A2 is that the Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party authorized service centre of the 3^rd Opposite Party.   The 2^nd Opposite Party recorded the problems of the mobile phone as capacity/charging problem, cannot connect charger.   The technician of the 2^nd Opposite Party reported remarks as charging connection not working charging pin broken and noted reasons for rejection on the rejection note dated 8.9.2011.

8.       The point that would arise for determination in the case is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

9.         After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party  who is the authorized service centre of the 3^rd Opposite Party for rectification of the defects in the said mobile phone.   The Complainant handed over the mobile phone to the 2^nd Opposite Party and requested them to rectify the defects of the charging problem and cannot connect the charger of the said mobile phone.   The 2^nd Opposite Party reported remarks and noted the reasons as the charger connect not working, charging pin broken, and on rejection note accessory or its ASP and that the above said product/accessory found to be beyond repairable condition.   This clearly shows that there is manufacture defect in the mobile phone.   It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties as they did not rectify the problem of the mobile phone or refund the amount though the mobile phone is within warranty period.   It amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.    Hence, the Complainant is entitled to cost of mobile phone with interest some compensation and costs too.

10.     In the result, this Complaint is allowed directing the Opposite Parties 1 to 3to refund an amount of Rs.1,850/- (Rupees One thousand eight hundred and fifty only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from 8.9.2011 till the date of actual realization; the Opposite Parties are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) and costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the Complainant.  Time for compliance, one month from the date of this order.

          After compliance of this order, the Complainant is directed to hand over the mobile phone to the Opposite Parties.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this 20^th day of October, 2014.

Sd/-                                              Sd/-                                  Sd/-

President                            Male Member                      Lady Member

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

For the Opposite Parties:-     

                                                -Nil-

Sd/-                                              Sd/-                                  Sd/-

President                       Male Member                                             Lady Member