DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 28^th  day of  June 2012

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

            : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

            : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member           Date of filing: 18/06/2011

(C.C.No.89/2011)

Muthu

S/o.Kuppuswamy,

Pampupara,

Chandrapuram,

Pudussery Amsom,

Walayar, Palakkad.                                                   -        Complainant

(By Adv.S.Saviour)

V/s

1. The Authorised Signatory,

   The Univercell Communication (P) Ltd.,

   T.B.Road, Palakkad – 678 014.

(By Adv.R.Udayakumar)   

2.LG Electronics India P.Ltd.

   Plot No.51, Udyog Vihar,

   Surajpur Kasna Road,

   Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh    

3.Orion Techno Solutions,

   12/310/15,

   First Floor, Metro Complex,

   Head Post Office Road,

   Palakkad – 678 001                                               -        Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT

Complainant purchased a mobile phone from the shop of 1^st opposite party on 21/5/2011 by paying Rs.3,000/-. The complainant used the phone till 2/6/11 when some problem was noted and the phone became non functioning. 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturing company and 3^rd opposite party is their service centre. Complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for repair who in turn advised to approach service centre of 2^nd opposite party. Complainant approached the service centre of 2^nd opposite party, who agreed to repair only with the prior permission of 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party insisted for payment of  Rs.2,800/- for spare parts and for repairing. As the complaint was noted with a month of purchase itself complainant requested 1^st opposite party either to replace or repair the set. 1^st opposite party was not amenable for the said demand. Hence the complaint. Complainant claims Rs.3,000/- being the price of the mobile along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation and cost.

2^nd and 3^rd opposite party who were later impleaded did not appear before the Forum and hence set exparte. 1^st opposite party filed version. 1^st opposite party admits the purchase of the mobile phone  from 1^st opposite party.

2^nd and 3^rd opposite party who were later impleaded did not appear before the Forum and hence was set exparte. 1^st opposite party filed version. 1^st opposite party admits the purchase of mobile from them, but with regard to the manufacturing defect if any the company will be responsible. As far the complaint of the mobile phone, the repair centre of 2^nd opposite party has stated that it is due to water logging inside the mobile phone which is due to the negligence of the complainant himself. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party.

The evidence adduced consists of chief affidavit of complainant and 1^st opposite party. Ext.A1, Ext.C1  & C2 marked.

Issues for consideration

1.    Whether the mobile phone supplied to the complainant is a defective one  ?

2.    If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to  ?

Issue No.1 & 2

Admittedly mobile phone is purchased from 1^st opposite party.1^st opposite party also admit that the mobile phone purchased by the complainant is defective, but according to them it is due to water logging as stated by the service centre of 2^nd opposite party. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party is exparte. 1^st opposite party has not adduced any evidence to show that defect is due to water logging. Available evidence on record to prove the defect is Ext.C1 & C2 Commission reports.  Commissioner has stated in the report that set not working due to mechanical defect. Evidence on record shows that set became defective within a period of 2 week itself. Opposite parties are bound to repair the product free of cost within the period of warranty. Demand of charges by opposite party is unfair. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties has not adduced any contra evidence. Hence we find that the mobile set sold to the complainant is a defective one and hence all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.

In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay complainant Rs.3,000/- being the price of the phone together with Rs.1,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Mobile Phone produced before the forum is ordered to be returned to opposite party 1.

Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole  amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 28^th  day of June 2012.

   Sd/-

Seena H

President

    Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

    Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Tax Invoice dated 21/5/11 of Univercell for Rs.3800/-   

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Nil

Commission Report

C1 – Abhilash.M.V

C2 – Abhilash.M.V

Cost Allowed

Rs.3,000/- allowed as cost of proceedings.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent