DATE OF FILING : 26.4.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  30th  day of  May,  2017

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.260/2016

Between

Complainant       :    Joy Joseph,

Thekkecheruvil House,

  Mulappuram P.O.,

    Karimannoor, Idukki.

  (By Adv:  K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties                                        :   1.  The Manager,

     Lumia City (Microsoft),

     Near Private Bus Stand,

     Pala Road, Thodupuzha,

     Idukki.

2.  The Manager,

     Poovathu International,

     CC 41/4108, 4th Floor,

     Kurian Tower, Banerji Road,

     Kochi – 682 018.

3.  The Managing Director,

     Microsoft Nokia India (P) Ltd.,

     Flat No.1204, 12th Floor,

     Kailash Building, 

     Kasthurba Gandhi Marg,

     New Delhi – 110 001.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

          Complainant is working as health inspector in the State Health Service.  He had purchased a ‘Lumia 540’ mobile phone from 1st opposite party on 3.9.2015 for Rs.9699/-.  1st opposite party had offered one year warranty and high quality and after sale service.  But after 11 months, the display of the phone became defective and 1st opposite party assured the same would be repaired under warranty and entrusted the same to 2nd opposite party.  But even 

(cont....2)

-  2  -

after frequent requests,  the said phone was not repaired by 2nd opposite party and after 3 weeks, 2nd opposite party intimated that since water entered into the phone, the same could not be repaired under warranty.  The display of the phone became defective and no water entered into it.  If it was wet with water why had they taken 3 weeks time to find it out !  2nd opposite party is deliberately fabricating this story for denying service under warranty.  The phone given by 1st opposite party is defective and of inferior quality.  Complainant is eligible to get the phone replaced and also compensation for the deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties.

          First opposite party filed written version and admitted the purchase of the phone.  Opposite party also admitted that the defective phone was entrusted with them.  But it was given to 2nd opposite party for repair and 2nd opposite party returned the same stating water had entered into the phone and hence it cannot be repaired under warranty and the same was intimated to the complainant.  1st opposite party contended that 2nd opposite party is liable to explain about the defect of the phone and whether water had entered inot it or not.  1st opposite party is not responsible for the defect.  2nd and 3rd opposite parties are liable to repair or replace the phone respectively.  There is no deficiency in service from the part of 1st opposite party and 1st opposite party may be exonerated.

          2nd opposite party never filed written version.

 

          The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

          Oral and documentary evidence adduced by complainant and Ext.P1 to P3 are marked.  No oral or documentary evidence adduced by opposite parties.

          The POINT :-   Complainant filed proof affidavit and examined as PW1.  Ext.P1 is the copy of the bill.  The receipt given, when the phone was entrusted for repair is marked as Ext.P2.  Ext.P3 is the receipt given when the phone was returned without repair, stating water had entered into the phone.     (cont....3)

-  3  -

          Complainant’s case is that he had entrusted the phone with 1st opposite party with the problem of defect in display.   But the said phone was returned after 3 weeks, without repair, stating ‘liquid damage’.  Complainant alleges that 2nd opposite party had mistaken the complainant in order to deny the benefit under warranty.  1st opposite party had given a low quality phone and the same should be replaced.

          1st opposite party in the written version contended that the said phone was sent to 2nd opposite party for repair and they had returned the same stating as ‘liquid damage’.  1st opposite party is not responsible for the defect of the phone and 2nd opposite party is the right person to identify the actual defect of the said phone.  1st opposite party further contended that 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are liable to repair or replace the phone.

 

We have gone through the records and deposition of PW1.  It is an admitted fact that the phone got damaged within the period of its warranty and the opposite parties are liable to be repair it or replaced.  It is to be noted that the complainant entrusted the phone to the 1st opposite party and 1st opposite party sent it to the 2nd opposite party, who is the authorised service agent of 3rd opposite party, the manufacturer and 2nd opposite party  returned the phone without repairing it.  Here 2nd and 3rd opposite parties had not entered appearance and not filed any version for challenging the allegations raised against them by the complainant.  It is the bounden duty of 2nd and 3rd opposite parties to convince the Forum, the actual reason why they had not repaired or replaced the phone in question, with clear and cogent evidence.  Hence 2nd and 3rd opposite parties failed to adduce any evidence either orally or documentary to counter the allegations against them.    The above said act of the 2nd opposite party is clear deficiency in their service.  Eventhough 2nd and 3rd opposite parties had given sufficient opportunity to contest the matter, they failed to do so.  It persumes   that 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are admitting the version of the complainant.  At the same time, 1st opposite party acted bonafidely in this matter and they performed their duty in time and no evidence is brought by the complainant fastening deficiency in service against them.

(cont....4)

-  4  -

Hence on the basis of the above discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that opposite parties 2 and 3 are liable to compensate the complainant adequately.  

Hence the complaint allowed.  3rd opposite party is directed to replace the phone described in the complaint or repay an amount of Rs.9699/- being the value of the phone which was paid by the complainant and 2nd opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost, within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

              Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2017

       Sd/-

  SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

       Sd/-

   SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1               -    Joy Joseph.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            -  Copy  of bill.

Ext.P2            -  Receipt given by opposite party at the time of entrusting the phone

      for repair.

Ext.P3            -  Receipt given by opposite party when the phone was returned

       without repair.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

   SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT