BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 23^rd day of February 2017

Filed on : 09-09-2015

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.No.605/2015

Between

Thomson K. Jose, : Complainant

Kannappillil house, (party-in-person)

Pallithazham,

Mulamthuruthy-682 314

And

1. The Manager, : Opposite parties

Mycromax Informatics Ltd., (Absent)

21/14 A, Narina Industrial Area,

Delhi-110 028.

2. The Manager,

Alif Mobile, Alif Communication,

Penta Menaka, Shop No. B-1,

Shanmugham road,

Ernakulam-31.

3. The Manager,

Galaxy Service Centre,

Irimbayil Complex,

2^nd floor, Shenois,

Chittoor Road,

Opp. Kavitha International

Hotel, Ernakulam.

O R D E R

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

1. Complainant's case

1. 2. Shri. Thomson K. Jose, the complainant in this case purchased a Micromax mobile phone on 12-04-2015 from the 2^nd opposite party M/s. Alif Mobiles. After using it about 4 months the touch screen started malfunctioning. The phone was entrusted to the 3^rd opposite party as per the advise of the 2^nd opposite party and they found that the phone had some software problem and it had reinstalled on the same day. However, after two days on 19-08-2015 the phone again had the same defects. When the matter was reported to the 3^rd opposite party, the service agent of the 1^st opposite party, the complainant was informed that the phone was dampened and therefore he will have to shell out Rs. 4,800/- towards repairing charges. Since the phone had one year warranty and there was no occasion for getting the phone dampned the complainant took up the matter before the 1^st opposite party directly on 21-08-2015 by email alleging manufacturing defects. The 1^st opposite party however, repudiated the claim of the complainant for replacement or repair free of cost. The complainant is aggrieved by the deficient service provided by the opposite party and he seeks refund of the amount spent by him for the purchase of the phone along with compensation and costs.

   3. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. They did not appear to contest the matter. When the matter came up for complainant's evidence the complainant filed a proof affidavit and Exbts. A1 to A4 documents were marked. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant.

   4. The complainant purchased the mobile phone from the 2^nd opposite party on 12^th April 2015 as per Exbt. A1 bill for an amount of Rs. 11,950/-. On 19-08-2015 it is seen produced before the 3^rd opposite party for getting it repairs and it is seen that an amount of Rs. 4,800/- was demanding for repairing the phone which had liquid damage on touch strip and connector. The complainant is seen to have written a letter to the opposite party as per Exbt. A3 challenging the refusal of the service agent. The opposites party as per Exbt. A4 retorted to the complainant that if there is any physical/liquid damage such damage will not covered under the warranty, and refused to honour the one year warranty provided to the phone against any manufacturing defects. It is to be noted that the phone purchased by the complainant became faulty after a period of 4 months. He was not able to use the phone thereafter despite the fact that he paid such a handsome amount for the phone. The opposite party did not even appear before this forum pursuant to the notice received, in order to take up their defense. If the opposite party wanted to repudiate the claim on the ground that there was water content and physical damage on the phone, it was their burden to prove the same. In the absence of any such move on the part of the opposite party we find that the complainant is entitled to get an order in his favour.

   5. In the result, the complaint stands allowed and we direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 who are jointly and severally liable to replace the mobile phone purchased by the complainant as per Exbt. A1 purchase bill with a new one of the same make and specifications within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.

   6. The complainant is found entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties 1 and 3 to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- for the mental agony and humiliation suffered by him.

   7. We direct the opposite parties 1 and 3 to pay costs of this proceedings to the complainant which we quantify at Rs. 3,000/- .

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 23^rd day of February 2017.

Sd/-

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/-

Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/-

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Exbt. A1 : True copy of bill dt. 12-04-2015

A2 : True copy of Job sheet summary

A3 : True copy of g-mail dt. 21-08-2015

A4 : True copy of letter dt. 22-08-2015

Opposite party's Exhibits: : Nil

Copy of order despatched on :

By Post: By hand: