IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31st day of August, 2015
Filed on 14.05.2015
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.147/2015
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Amal. M. 1. Sonic Systems, Pulimoottil Trade
Poonjilikkavu Centre, Mullackal, Alappuzha
Ponnadu P.O. Pin – 688 011
Alappuzha – 688 538
2. Mobile World, Sarada Shopping
Complex, Mullackal, Alappuzha
3. Lava International Ltd., A – 56
Sector – 64, Noida – 201 301, India
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The brief facts of the case in short are as follows:-
The complainant purchased a mobile phone from the second opposite party manufactured by the first opposite party for an amount of Rs.9,900/- on 11.11.2014. The opposite parties assured one year warranty at the time of purchase. Two months after the date of purchase, the said phone became defective and entrusted to the first opposite party who is the authorized service centre for rectifying the defect. When contacted the first opposite party for getting it repaired they informed the complainant that the spare parts are not available with them so mobile phone was not repaired. On 9.4.2015, he approached the opposite party directly for getting it repaired. Then the complainant noticed that the touch pad of the said phone was cracked. Then the opposite party issued another job sheet stating the touch broken, physical damage when the complainant handed over the said phone to the opposite party there was no crack in the touch pad and the only defect is that battery is not getting charged properly. But till now the phone has not been repaired and returned hence filed this complaint seeking refund of the price of the mobile phone or to replace the mobile phone.
2. Notice was served to the opposite parties. Even though, opposite parties appeared before the Forum, but did not file any version and also absent in the subsequent proceedings and hence set ex-parte.
3. Complainant adduced oral evidence and produced 3 documents marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the cash bill dated 11.11.2014, Ext.A2 is the job sheet dated 9.4.2015 and Ext.A3 is the warranty card.
4. Considering the allegations of the complainant the Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs?
5. Point Nos.1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a mobile phone from the second opposite party manufactured by the first opposite party on 11.11.2014 for an amount of Rs.9,900/- and the phone is having one year warranty. The said phone became defective immediately after 2 months from the date of purchase. The defect is that the battery is not getting charged properly. The complainant entrusted the said phone to the first opposite party for rectifying the defect. He contacted the opposite party many times for getting it repaired, they informed the complainant that the phone has not been repaired due to non availability of spare parts. On 9.4.2015 he approached the opposite party directly for getting it repaired. Then the complainant found that the touch screen of the said phone is cracked and the first opposite party issued new job sheet stating touch broken, physical damage etc. According to the complainant there was no crack on the screen when he handed over the set to the first opposite party. Till now phone has not repaired and returned and hence filed this complaint. The documents produced would show that the complainant purchased a mobile phone for an amount of Rs.9,900/- on 11.11.2014 and the said phone became defective within the warranty period and entrusted with the first opposite party on 9.4.2015 for getting it repaired, but the defect was not rectified so far. According to the complainant, when he entrusted the phone to the first opposite party there was no crack in the phone. The phone is with the opposite parties. The opposite parties were given sufficient chances to contest the case, but they did not turn up. The allegations put forwarded by the complainant against opposite parties stands unchallenged. The disputed gadget is also with the opposite parties. Since the opposite parties have not rectified the defect which occurred within the warranty period and causing unexplained delay in rectifying the defect amounts to deficiency in service. So the complaint is allowed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to rectify the defect of the product free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred 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.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2015.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Amal. M. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Cash bill dated 11.11.2014
Ext.A2 - Job sheet dated 9.4.2015
Ext.A3 - Warranty card.
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
