By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:
Brief of the complaint:- On 28.06.2013 complainant approached the opposite party and asked for a good mobile handset with price range between Rs.6,000 -Rs.7,000/-. The opposite party No.1 recommended that Samsung S6102Y Duos is the best in the said category. Relying on the representation given by opposite party No.1 complainant purchased Samsung S6102Y Duos after paying Rs.7,660/- for his son Shabeer as a Birthday gift. The complainant opted this handset only on the recommendation of opposite party No.1. Within a few days after the purchase the mobile phone started to showing some defects. It used to take more than 5 hours to charge the battery to its full and the battery backup was very low and the battery was getting heated quickly and also the mobile frequently getting switched off during call. The complainant's son approached the opposite party No.1 for getting the defect cured. Each time they represented that such defects are common and everything would be alright soon. Since the defect was not cured, opposite party No.1 directed the complainant's son to approach opposite party No.2 being the authorized service centre of the company. Complainant's son entrusted the mobile phone to opposite party No.2 for repair and the same was given back after repair but the defect was not rectified at all. Again complainant's son approached opposite party No.2 and enquired about it, he was told that the defect is inherent and cannot be rectified permanently. It was then understood that the mobile phone is having manufacturing defect which cannot be rectified at all. Again complainant's son approached the opposite party No.1 with request to replace the defective mobile phone with a new one, but there was no positive response from the opposite party No.1. The act of the opposite parties caused much inconveniences and mental agony to the complainant. Hence filed this complaint to get cost and compensation.
2. Notice served to opposite parties. Opposite parties No.1 and 2 not appeared before the Forum, hence set ex-parte. Opposite party No.3 filed version.
3. Version filed by opposite party No.3 in short as follows:- Opposite party No.3 admitted that the complainant purchased a Mobile phone from opposite party No.1. The date of purchase according to the complainant was 28.06.2013. However as per the records of the opposite parties, the date of purchase was 13.04.2013. It is submitted that the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and 2 on two occasions. The handset was repaired by replacing its PBA and returned to the complainant on 26.11.2013. After repair the set was working smoothly. Again the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party on 05.12.2013 to the satisfaction of the complainant. After the said repair also the set was working smoothly. According to opposite party there is no manufacturing defect, hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?.
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed affidavit and cross examined by Opposite party No.3. Ext.A1, A2 and MO1 are marked. Opposite party No.3 admitted the purchase of mobile phone from opposite party No.1. According to their version the date of purchase was mentioned as 12.04.2013 but as per complaint and Ext.A1 bill the date of purchase was 28.06.2013. According to Ext.A2 service request complainant entrusted the mobile set to opposite party No.2 on 25.11.2013. Again the complainant alleges that when he approached opposite party No.1 the sales persons of opposite party No.1 mocked him and they were not done necessary arrangements to cure the defects. In their version, opposite party No.3 stated that MO-1 has no manufacturing defect but they were not adduced an evidence or service details to substantiate their case. The complainant not taken any expert opinion to prove the defects of the handset. Opposite party No.2 and 3 were not present before the Forum to defend their case. Considering the evidences adduced before us the Forum is of the view that the handset became defective within warranty period. Hence the non repair of the handset within the warranty period is deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- The point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant, hence the complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation from the opposite parties. The Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the cost of the handset ie Rs.7,660/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty) only to the complainant. Opposite party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.2,000/ -(Rupees Two Thousand) only as cost and compensation to the complainant. This Order must be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of February 2015.
Date of Filing:05.02.2014.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/- MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Shabeer. District Planning Office, Project Worker.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Retail Invoice. dt:28.06.2013.
A2. Service Request. dt:25.11.2013.
MO1. Mobile Phone.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
