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.146/2015
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Jijesh Mohan 1. Sonic Systems, Pulimoottil Trade
Thakkidiveli Centre, Mullackal, Alappuzha
Kalavoor P.O. Pin – 688 011
Alappuzha – 688 522
2. Mobile World, Sarada Shopping
Complex, Mullackal, Alappuzha
Pin – 688 011
3. Lava International Ltd., A – 56
Sector – 64, Noida – 201 301
Uttar Pradesh (2)3938, Hw Qing
Ping Shaghai PRC
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The brief facts of the case in short are as follows:-
The complainant had purchased a mobile phone from the second opposite party manufactured by the third opposite party for an amount of Rs.7,600/- on 28.10.2014. The opposite parties assured one year warranty at the time of purchase of the product. Four months after the date of purchase, the said phone became defective and it was entrusted with the first opposite party who is the authorized service centre and the first opposite party repaired it and returned it to the complainant. But immediately after two days from the date of repair, the said phone became again defective when approached the first opposite party for getting it repaired. They informed the complainant that the complaint with regard to the touch pad and camera, it will take 20 days time and the set has to be sent to Delhi for repairing. The opposite party returned the gadget to the complainant stating that the defect has been rectified, but the camera was still not in working. The mobile phone again defective and entrusted to the first opposite party for repair even though they repaired the set the same defect persisted and the complainant can’t use the mobile phone because of the recurring defect. Hence filed this complaint, seeking refund of the price of the mobile phone or to replace the same.
2. Notice was served to the opposite parties, but they did not appear before the Forum, and opposite parties were set ex-parte.
3. Complainant adduced oral evidence and produced 3 documents marked as Exts.A1 to A3.
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 third opposite party for an amount of Rs.7,600/- on 28.10.2014. The product is having one year warranty. Immediately after the date of purchase, the said phone became defective and complainant entrusted to the first opposite party for getting it repaired. Even though first opposite party repaired it many times, the same defect persisted. According to the complainant, he could not use the mobile phone because of the inherent manufacturing defect. The complainant sustained much mental agony and financial loss and hence filed this complaint seeking a direction against the opposite parties either to replace the mobile phone or to refund its price.
6. The complainant produced 3 documents also adduced oral evidence. Ext.A1 is the bill dated 28.10.2014. From this it can be seen that the complainant purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the third opposite party from the second opposite party for an amount of Rs.7,600/-. Ext.A2 is the job sheet dated 20.4.2015. From this it can be seen that the same was entrusted to the first opposite party for repair and the product is under warranty. Ext.A3 is the warranty card and from which it can be seen that the defect happened when the warranty was inexistence. According to the complainant the opposite parties could rectify the defects properly because of the inherent manufacturing defect of the product. Since the defect is recurring and can’t be repaired properly, the defect might be because of manufacturing defect. Even after service of notice from this Forum, the opposite parties have not responded to the same. The allegations put forwarded by the complainant against the opposite parties stands unchallenged. The allegations of the complainant had been proved by supporting evidence. Since the opposite parties have repaired the mobile phone many times but the same defect persisted the complainant is entitled to get it replaced. Since the mobile phone was not rectified properly or replaced so far, the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. So the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to replace mobile phone with a new one along with fresh warranty The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the mobile phone as Rs.7,600/- with 10% interest from the date of order till realization. In both cases the complainant is directed to hand over the defective mobile phone to the opposite parties.
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 - Jijesh Mohan (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Cash bill dated 28.10.2014
Ext.A2 - Job sheet dated 20.4.2015
Ext.A3 - Warranty card.
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
