By Jayasree Kallat, Member:

            The complainant purchased one RIM Mobile hand set mobile LG 2230 from the first opposite party on 25-1-05 for an amount of Rs.1670/-.  On 4-8-05 his hand set became defective.  He informed the first opposite party immediately.  Opposite party-1 informed the complainant that opposite party-2 is the authorized service center of LG Mobile hand set.  Accordingly complainant approached opposite party-2 on 6-8-05.  Opposite party-2 had informed the complainant that the battery is defective and has to be changed.  Opposite party-2 stated that as the battery is out of guarantee the complainant has to pay the cost of new battery.  The complainant purchased the hand set on 25-1-05.  The hand set became defective on 4-8-05 which is within the warranty period.  As the battery is a part of mobile hand set the complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the mobile set.  The opposite parties refused to comply with the complainant’s request.  So the complainant had to buy a new battery.  Complainant had to spend extra money for a new battery due to negligence and deficiency of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant has filed this petition to refund the cost of the new battery along with compensation for the mental agony he had to suffer.

            Opposite party-1 filed a version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted.  Opposite party-1 admits the purchase of RIM mobile hand set by the complainant on 25-1-05.  When the complainant approached the opposite party-1 with defective hand set.  Opposite party-1 had informed the complainant that the manufacturing company has to replace the battery.  Opposite party-1 had informed the manufacturing company and got sanction for the replacement but the complainant did not approach the opposite parties.  The warranty for the battery is of 9 months from the date of purchase or 12 months from the date of manufacturing which ever is earlier.  In this case even though the purchase date is 25-1-05 the manufacturing date is more than one year.  Under these circumstances the battery does not cover warranty.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief against opposite party-1 and prays to dismiss the complaint.

            Opposite party-2 filed a version denying the allegations.  The complaint is defective for non jointer of necessary parties the manufacturer of LG Reliance India Mobile Limited.  Opposite party is only an authorized service center for LG CDMA mobile phones.  Complainant had purchased the RIM hand set mobile LG 2230 from the first opposite party after agreeing with the conditions of warranty.  The important condition mentioned in the warranty is that the battery of the phone has got only 9 months warranty from the date of purchase or 12 months from the date of manufacturing, whichever is earlier.  Complainant purchased the phone fully agreeing and accept the conditions of warranty.  There was no deficiency of service on unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party-2.  Opposite party-2 submits to dismiss the complaint with cost to opposite party-2.

            Opposite party-2 had raised the issue of none jointer of necessary parties the manufacturer of LG mobile phones and service provider Reliance India Mobile Limited.  Hence the complainant had taken steps to implead opposite party-3 and 4.  Accordingly the complainant filed an I.A. petition 13/08 which was allowed.  Hence O.P.3 and 4 subsequently impleaded.

            Opposite party-3 filed a version admitted the fact that they have sold large number of Mobile phones in bulk to the mobile service provider M/s. Reliance India Mobile Ltd. including the hand set purchased by the complainant.  As per the warranty conditions the battery of the hand set has a warranty of 9 months from the date of activation or 12 months from the date of manufacturing which ever is earlier.  In this case the date of purchase is within 9 month prior to the complaint of battery, but it is beyond 12 months of the date of manufacturing.  The complainant’s hand set is manufactured in April 2004.  The complainant has purchased the hand set fully agreeing to the conditions of warranty.  Opposite party-3 has not received any complaint from the complainant prior to the receipt of notice from the Forum.  The complainant has purchased new battery without any objection.  Immediately on receipt of written complaint, opposite parties-1 and 2 have agreed to replace the battery free of cost as a gesture of good will.  There was no deficiency on the part of any of the opposite parties.  Hence opposite party-3 prays to dismiss the complaint.

            Opposite party-4 was subsequently impleaded in the party array, also filed a written version denying the allegations in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. While availing connection the complainant executed customer application form agreeing and admitting the terms and conditions in the over leaf.  Proper service is provided by opposite party-4.  There was no deficiency on the part of opposite party-4.  Opposite party-4 was not let known by the complainant regarding the defect of the mobile.  Defects in the hand set including its components during manufacture and otherwise is to be dealt by the manufacturer according to the terms and conditions of warranty.  Opposite party-4 is only providing service.  There was no deficiency in service to the complainant.  So opposite party-4 is a unnecessary party in this case.  Opposite party-4 is not liable to pay any compensation claimed in the complaint.  Opposite party-4 prays to dismiss the petition.

            The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

            PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on complainant’s side.  RW1 was examined on opposite party-1’ side and RW2 was examined on opposite party-2’ side. No documents filed by the opposite parties.

            The case of the complainant is that he purchased a RIM mobile hand set mobile LG 2230 from the first opposite party on 25-1-05.  The hand set became defective on 4-8-05 after 8 months of purchase.  The complainant immediately approached the first opposite party.  The first opposite party checked the mobile hand set and informed the complainant that the second opposite party is the authorized service center of LG mobile hand set.  So the complainant approached the Oppositeparty-2 on 6-8-05,.  Opposite party-2 informed the complainant that the battery has become defective and it has to be replaced.  They also set that since the battery is out of guarantee the complainant has to pay the cost of new battery.  Even though complainant requested to replace the new battery free of cost opposite party refused.  So the complainant had to buy a new battery.  As opposite party-2 has raised the issue of non jointer of necessary parties the manufacturer and the service provider, opposite party-3 manufacturer LG mobile phone and service provider M/s. Reliance India Mobile Limited were also impleaded later on.  According to all these opposite parties the battery of the hand set as a warranty of 9 months from the date of the activation or 12 months from the date of manufacturing which ever is earlier.   In this case the date of purchase is within 9 month prior to complaint of battery.  But the date of manufacturing was beyond 12 months.  So the opposite parties refused to replace a new battery and demanded the complainant to pay for the new battery.  The complainant has filed this petition alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice  All the opposite parties has talked about the w3arranty conditions.  But the hand set was sold to the complainant after the warranty was expired.  Opposite party has taken the contention that the complainant had purchased the hand set fully understanding the warranty conditions and date of manufacturing.  In our opinion no prudent man will purchase any commodity which is out of warranty.  So we cannot accept the version of opposite parties that the complainant has purchased fully knowing the conditions.  The warranty condition was that the battery of the phone has got only 9 months warranty from the date of purchase or 12 months from the date of manufacturing whichever is earlier.  The battery became defective within 8 months of purchase.  But the when the complainant approached the opposite parties he was informed that the manufacturing date of the battery was beyond 12 months.  So he has to pay for the new battery.  The complainant has argued that he was not aware that the manufacturing date was already over when he purchased the mobile set.  If so he would not have bought the mobile hand set.  There is no cause for the Forum to believe otherwise.  We are of the strong opinion that the opposite parties have done unfair trade practice and sold the mobile hand set fully knowing that the warranty period is already over.  According to our opinion the complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount expended towards purchasing a new battery along with compensation and cost.

            In the result the petition is allowed and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the amount of the new battery Rs.561.60 and a compensation of Rs.2000/- and a cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled for an interest of 9% for the total amount from the date of the order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court this the 11^th day of March 2010.

            Sd/-PRESIDENT                     Sd/-MEMBER             Sd/-MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1.  Cash bill dt. 25-1-05 issued by O.P.1 to the complainant.

A2.  Bill dt. 8-8-05 IInd O.P. to the complainant.

A3.  Copy of Regd. Lawyer notice dt. 10-8-05.

A4.  Reply notice dt. 17-8-05.

A5.  Letter dt. 19-8-05 sent by O.P.2 to Mr. Dilkush.V.K., Advocate, Calicut.

A6.  Letter dt. 6-8-05 sent by O.P.2 to the complainant.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

                        Nil

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1.  Balakrishnan.M. (Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party.

RW1.  Kishor Babu, Main Salesman of O.P.1

RW2.  Mukundan.T. , Managing Partner of 2^nd O.P.

                                                                                                Sd/- President

                                    // True copy //

(Forwarded/By order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.