By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to get replace of mobile set or to refund the price of the mobile set due to the supply of defective mobile set.

2. Brief of the complaint:- Complainant have purchased Samsung Galaxy Star Advanced mobile phone worth Rs.6,800/- from the shop Tunes mobile phone & Camera at Kalpetta on 08.09.2014. Complainant was given one year warranty. There was no complaint to the phone till  6 P.M of 10.12.2014. Thereafter while complainant was attending the phone, the display got blurred and the phone stopped working. The next day morning complainant took the phone to the above said shop and they entrusted the phone to the Samsung Mobile service centre. Complainant was told from the Service centre that the hand set was wet and they would not take up the responsibility. “It may be caused even due to the sweat on hand. There was no display and the hand set got damaged. The repair may cost Rs.7,500/-. If the said amount is given, the hand set can be repaired". Complainant sure that the hand set was not got wet from her possession. It was only 3 month since complainant bought the phone. Therefore it is prayed that the Honorable Forum may be pleased to direct the opposite party to replace the hand set with a new one or return Rs.6,800/- spent for the purchase of the phone, to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to me and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of this proceedings.

3. Notices were served to opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 and 2 entered in appearance and filed version. Opposite party No.3 is set ex-parte on 18.05.2015.

4. Opposite party No.1 and 2 filed version in short is as follows:- The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on true facts of the case and is liable to be dismissed inlimine. The complainant has no right or locus standi to file the above complaint against this opposite parties. Admittedly the 1^st Opposite party is the approved show room and the 2^nd opposite party is the authorized service Centre. If the complainant have any case that the mobile set purchased by her is having any manufacturing defect, the Manufacturer company is answerable and hence the Samsung company is a necessary party in the above case. Since the manufacturer is not made as party in the above case, the above complaint bad for non joinder of necessary parties and the same is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. With out prejudice to the above contentions this opposite party denies all allegations and averments in the above case except those that are specifically admitted here under. It is true that the complainant purchased a mobile set from the show room of the first opposite party as alleged in the petition. At the time of sale the first opposite party specifically told to the complainant that it is only an approved sales showroom and all subsequent service will be available only from the authorized service centre. Proper Bill with endorsement of the above facts issued to the complainant. Company Warranty card also given to her. Being a sophisticated electronic device in the warranty card it is specifically stated that no warranty will be given if the set damaged due to misuse such as falling down or damaged due to the contact of water. It is true that during December 2014 the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party alleging complaint to her Cell Phone, Immediately the first Opposite party directed her to the 2^nd Opposite party who is the authorized service centre for verifying the complaint. The staff of 1^st opposite party accompanied her to the service centre. The 2^nd Opposite party then and there verified the complaint and revealed that the hand set damaged due to the contact of water. At the time of verification also the water was present on the place of connecting mother board and display. Photograph of the same also taken then and there to send it to the company and to attach in the service records. Either the set fell in to water or water might have flow over the same. The said fact has been convinced to the complainant and informed her that since it is damaged due to the contact of water no warranty can be provided and if the complainant is ready to met the cost the same can be repaired by replacing the damaged parts. The complainant admitted that accidentally the phone happened to be fell down in to the wash basin and immediately she take it out and dried it using towel. Then the complainant told that she is not prepared to repair it and is better to purchase another one. The complainant left the service station fully convinced the reason for the complaint of the phone. There after as an experiment she preferred the above complaint.

5. The Opposite party deny all allegations and averments in the complaint that the phone is not damaged due to the contact of water etc. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite parties and even the complainant has no such case. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint. Complainant is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 and A2 documents and MO-1 series were also marked. Ext.A1 is the Invoice of the mobile set for Rs.6,800/-. Ext.A2 is the Warranty card, it shows the warranty for one year. Opposite party No.1 and 2 not adduced any oral evidence.

7. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the

part of opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

8. Point No.1:- The complainant categorically stated that from her hand no water entered in to the mobile set. Opposite party No.1 and 2 stated in the version that inside the mobile set there is a symptoms of water entry. It is up to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to prove that there is water entry by Expert opinion but that is not done done by opposite party No.1 and 2. So the Forum have to consider the defect as manufacturing defect. Hence we opine that it is a manufacturing defect. It is not defended by the manufacturer. Hence we opine that it is an unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party No.3. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.

9. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the opposite party No.3, opposite party No.3 is liable to replace the mobile set or to refund the value of the mobile set and to pay cost and compensation and the complainant is entitled for the same.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.3 is directed to repalce the mobile set ie MO-1 series or to refund the value of the mobile set ie Rs.6,800/- (Rupees Six Thousand and Eight Hundred) and to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this Order. On receipt of new mobile set or on receipt of value of mobile set the complainant is directed to return the MO-1 series mobile set to the opposite party No.3. If the opposite party No.3 not complying the Order within one month, the complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the whole amount.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 3^rd day of August 2015.

Date of Filing:19.12.2014.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1. Gracy. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Invoice. Dt:08.09.2014.

A2. Warranty Card.

MO-1 Series. Mobile Phone and accessories.

Exhibits for the opposite parties:-

B1. Photograph.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

a/-