IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 29th day of February, 2015
Filed on 06.01.2015
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.4/2015
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Alexander Sebastian 1. Sri. Sijo Thomas, Sonic System
Pallathu, Subhramanyapuram (W) Pulimoottil Trade Centre
Avalookkunnu P.O. Mullackal, Alappuzha – 688 011
Alappuzha – 688 006 (By Adv. K. T. Anishmon)
2. Lava International Ltd., A – 56
Sector – 64, 201301, Noida
Mobile : 9995033618 (Renjith)
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The facts of the complaint in short are as follows:-
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Xolo mobile phone on 10.3.2014 for an amount of Rs.9,200/- which has one year warranty. The phone became defective on 18.11.2014 and entrusted to the first opposite party who is the authorized service centre of the second opposite party. Even though first opposite party has promised to replace the phone, he failed to do so and thereby the complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
2. Notice against the first opposite party served, first opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed his version. Notice against the additional second opposite party is not returned.
3. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. It is true that the complainant has entrusted the mobile phone for repairing. The said phone has sent to Delhi for repairing and the second opposite party has issued a new mobile phone. But the complainant is not willing to accept the same alleging that there was a scratch on the back side of the phone. Since the complainant is not satisfied with the phone, the product was again sent to the company for replacing it. The company has sent a new phone again. The first opposite party has given the new phone to the complainant, but he is not willing to accept the same and saying that the replaced phone is white in colour and the phone he purchased was black colour. The opposite party further contended that the complainant behaved badly to him over telephone on the day of his house warming ceremony. The company has replaced the phone twice, but the complainant is not willing to accept the same and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So the complaint is to be dismissed with costs.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A4.
5. Considering the allegations of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief sought for?
6. Point Nos.1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the second opposite party for an amount of Rs.9,200/-. The product has one year warranty. During the warranty period, it became defective and entrusted to the first opposite party who is the authorized service centre of second opposite party. According to the complainant, the phone was neither repaired nor replaced so far, the complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint seeking either to refund the price of the mobile phone or to replace the mobile phone along with compensation. According to the first opposite party, the company is willing to replace the phone and the company has sent new mobile phone twice for replacing, but the complainant is not ready to accept the same.
7. Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. Ext.A1 is the copy of the cash bill dated 8.3.2014, Ext.A2 is the copy of the job sheet dated 18.11.2014, Ext.A3 is the copy of complaint filed before the Police Station dated 30.11.2014 and Ext.A4 is the copy complaint filed before the Police Station dated 14.12.2014. From the documents, it is clear that the complainant purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the second opposite party for an amount of Rs.9,200/- on 10.3.2014, it became defective and entrusted to the first opposite party for repair during the warranty period. According to the complainant the phone has not been replaced or repaired so far. According to the opposite party they are ready to replace the phone, and the company has issued a new mobile phone, but the complainant is not ready to accept the phone alleging that there was a scratch on the replaced phone and that is why he did not accept the same and on another occasion the supplied phone is of white colour and the phone he purchased was black in colour and that is why he did not accept it for the second time. According to the complainant he could not use the mobile phone. Admittedly the phone is with the opposite party from 18.11.2014 on wards and the product is under warranty. Hence we are of the opinion that opposite parties are liable to replace the mobile phone with a new one of the same model and colour. Since the primary grievances of the complainant having been met adequately, we refrain from awarding compensation. So the complaint is allowed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile phone with a new one of the same model and colour with fresh warranty within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the first and second opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund the price of the mobile phone Rs.9,200/- (Rupees nine thousand and two hundred only) to the complainant with 8% interest from the date of order till realization. No order as to costs. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced by me in open Forum on this the 29th day of February, 2016
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Alexander Sebastian (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the cash bill dated 8.3.2014
Ext.A2 - Copy of the job sheet dated 18.11.2014
Ext.A3 - Copy of complaint filed before the Police Station dated 30.11.2014
Ext.A4 - Copy complaint filed before the Police Station dated 14.12.2014
Evidence of the opposite parties: - Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by: - pr/-
Compared by:-
