By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act to get replace of mobile set or to refund the price of mobile and to get cost and compensation due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties.
2. Brief of the complaint:- On 28.09.2014 the Complainant purchased a SANSUNG GRAND-2 MOBILE Model (SM-G71O2ZKAINS, SERIAL No. RZ1F72PB4BB, 353202/06/296011/2) from opposite party No.3 and the complainant paid Rs.19,000/- towards the price of the said set. The 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer and the 1st opposite party is the authorized service center in Wayanad district of the said mobile set. The opposite parties had given one year warranty for the said product. The 2nd opposite party had advertised in Medias and made the complainant believe that the mobile is the best among the available mobiles and that if any complaint occurs, the same would be repaired then and there without any delay. After about few months from the date of purchase, the complainant noticed that the LCD display of the mobile set was cracked and the set became useless. The complainant also noticed that there were no cracks or defects on the touch screen of the set. Immediately the Complainant had reported the matter to the Opposite party No.1 and the defective set was handed over to the opposite party No.1 and he had issued a acknowledgment of service request as per No.4186323456 dated 10.12.2014. After verification the opposite party No.1 intimated that the crack happened on the LCD monitor is due to physical damage and the same is not covered under warranty and the complainant was directed to pay service charge and replacement charge. The complainant submit that the damage caused to the set is not happened due to misuse or improper usage of the set as the device was not even slip down from the hands of the complainant. The cracks were happened only due to manufacturing defects. The above said device is having manufacturing defect and without cracking the touch screen the LCD is cracked means purely the product is defective. The First Opposite party being the authorized service center of the mobile set and the Second Opposite party being the manufacturer of the mobile set and the 3rd Opposite party being the dealer of the mobile set are jointly and severally liable to replace the mobile set within a reasonable time and without causing much inconvenience to the Complainant.
3. The above said acts of the opposite Parties are unfair trade practice and negligent service and it caused heavy inconvenience to the complainant and all the opposite parties are liable to compensate the same. Hence prayed before the Forum to replace the mobile set or to pay the cost of mobile set ie Rs.19,000/- with cost and compensation.
4. Notices were served to all opposite parties and opposite party No.1's notice returned stating that “left”. Hence opposite party No.1 set ex-parte on 16.04.2015. Opposite Party No.2's notice served on 19.03.2013, proposed vakalath and not filed version till 08.06.2014. Hence he is set ex-parte on 08.06.2014. Opposite party No.3's notice served on 21.03.2015 but not appeared before the Forum and not filed version. Hence opposite party No.3 is set ex-parte on 16.04.2015.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 were marked. Ext.A1 is the Bill issued by the opposite party No.3 to the complainant for Rs.19,000/- dated 28.09.2014 for the mobile set Samsung Grand 2. Ext.A2 is the Acknowledgment of service request given by the opposite parties. Wherein the defect is noted as LCD Lines and shades and LCD cracked and Accessory-Handset, Battery Adapter and data cable which shows that opposite party No.1 acknowledged the set and accessories. Ext.A3 is the Lawyer Notice issued from complainant to opposite parties and postal receipts.
6. On perusal of complaint, affidavit and produced documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the
part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost.
7. Point No.1:- Since all the opposite parties are ex-parte the complaint and affidavit can be believed in toto. Hence we found that there is clear evidence of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. Hence the Point No.1 is found accordingly.
8. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against all the opposite parties, they are liable to refund the cost of the mobile set, cost and compensation and the complainant is entitled for the same.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund the price of the mobile set ie Rs.19,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand) and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to comply the order within one month 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 29th day of July 2015.
Date of Filing:04.03.2015.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Shijji Joseph (Affidavit). Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Bill. Dt:28.09.2014.
A2. Acknowledgment of Service Request. Dt:10.12.2014.
A3. Lawyer Notice. Dt:26.12.2014.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
