By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:-
The complaint is filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 for an Order to get back the price of mobile phone or to replace the defective mobile phone with a new one with compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Brief of the complaint:- On 27.01.2014 the complainant purchased a Samsung mobile phone worth Rs.1,750/- from the opposite party No.1. The very next day itself it showed some irregularities in its function. The complainant informed this to opposite party No.1, they repaired it manually and returned to the complainant on 12.02.2014. Again the problem was there, then as per the instruction of opposite party No.1 on 22.02.2014 complainant entrusted the mobile phone to opposite party No.2, which is the authorized service center of samsung mobile. On 26.02.2014 opposite party No.2 returned it after repair, but even after the repair the same defect was there. Again on 03.03.2014 complainant given the mobile phone to opposite party No.2, thereafter on 11.03.2014 opposite party No.2 returned it stating that they had sent it to Calicut and replaced the motherboard and all the defects were cured. But still the problem was there in the mobile phone. Hence filed this complaint to get back the price of the mobile phone or to replace the mobile phone with a new one along with compensation and cost of this proceedings.
3. Notices served to opposite parties on 04.04.2014, but they were not present and not filed version. Hence they set ex-parte on 05.05.2014 and proceeded with the case.
4. On considering the complaint and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed chief affidavit and examined as PW1. Ext.A1 document is marked which is the Original Bill dated 27.01.2014 and the mobile phone is marked as MO 1. On going through the Ext.A1 we finds that on 27.01.2014 the complainant purchased a Samsung Mobile phone of Rs.1,750/- from opposite party No.1's shop. According to the complainant the defect of the mobile phone caused many inconveniences to him. Even after the repair still the complaint was there. Thereafter the complainant contacted to customer care but they were not taken any steps to cure the defect. So the complainant filed this complaint either to replace the defective mobile phone with a new one or to get back the price of the mobile phone together with cost and compensation. But opposite parties were not present before this Forum to defend their case. So we finds that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled to get compensation. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- In the complaint complainant prays Rs.15,000/- for cost and compensation but the complainant not produced any documentary evidence to prove the case regarding the expenses incurred by him. Since we find deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.1 is directed to return the price of the Mobile phone that is Rs.1,750/- (Rupees One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty) only and the opposite party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.1,500/ -(Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred) only as compensation and cost of the proceedings. Complainant is directed to return the old mobile phone to opposite party No.1 on receipt of the full amount. This Order must be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order otherwise the opposite parties are directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the total amount.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 4th day of June 2014.
Date of Filing:26.03.2014.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
\True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1(Affidavit). T. Chandrashekharan.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Retail Invoice. Dt:27.01.2014.
MO1. Mobile Phone.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
