ORDER.

By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:-

Brief of the complaint:- The complainant has purchased a Videocon mobile phone handset on 25.01.2011 from opposite party No.1. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are the dealers of 3^rd opposite party. At the time of purchase opposite party offered warranty and effective service for the mobile phone handset for a period of one year from the date of purchase that is 25.01.2011 and supplied the service Center Directory Card, Warranty Card and Users Manual booklet etc..

2. While the complainant was using the same it was started malfunctioning within months and not charged with power and he was not able to use the same. On 12.09.2011 he had given the same to the 2^nd opposite party for servicing. The 2^nd opposite party issued a receipt acknowledging the receipt of mobile set. The 2^nd opposite party assured that it will be repaired and returned within days. But the same has not returned in the specified period.

3. The complainant further stated that the defect caused to the mobile phone due to the manufacturing defect . It is submitted that the acts of the opposite parties are the deficiency of service on their part. Therefore it is humbly prayed that to pass an Order against the opposite party No.2 directing the opposite party No.2 to return the defects cured mobile set and failing which to pay Rs.3,500/- ie the cost of the mobile handset and to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as damages and cost of the complaint.

4. Opposite party No.2 is appeared and filed their version. Opposite parties No.1 and 3 have not appeared and filed their version. Hence opposite parties No.1 and 3 are set exparte and proceeded with the case.

5. The 2^nd opposite party filed version in short it is as follows:- The opposite party No.2 admitted that the 2^nd opposite party is the authorized service center of 3^rd opposite party. This opposite party is only a service center of the 3^rd opposite party and the opposite party is doing only the service and repairs of the mobile handsets of the 3^rd opposite party as per the terms of the warranty conditions. Further admitted that 3^rd opposite party had offered one year warranty and free service for the mobile phone against any manufacturing defects. It is admitted that the complainant had brought the alleged mobile handset at the shop of this opposite party. As per the warranty terms this opposite party is not liable to service the handset in free of cost. The defects caused to the handset is only due to the misuse by the complainant. After knowing this the complainant was willing to bear the cost of the handset. But after 2 days the complainant approached this opposite party's shop and demanded free service. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6. On considering the complaint and version the following points are to be considered.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Relief and Cost.

7. Point No.1 :- To prove the complainant's case, complainant is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 is marked. In the proof affidavit the complainant stated as stated in the complaint. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by opposite party No.2 to the complainant. It shows that on 12.09.2011 the complainant entrusted the mobile phone with the opposite party No.2. Ext.A2 is the Warranty Card of the mobile phone. Ext.A3 is the Service Center Directory issued to the complainant at the time of purchase. Ext.A4 series is the Lawyer Notice , Acknowledgment Card and Postal Receipt sent to opposite party No.2 demanding to return defect cured mobile phone.

8. On going through the complaint and above documents it is found that the complainant has purchased a mobile phone handset from opposite party No.1 on 25.01.2011, and the same was defected and handed over to opposite party No.2 on 12.09.2011. Still the mobile phone handset is with opposite party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 neither repaired nor returned the mobile phone till this date, this is the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party No.2. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

9. Point No.2:- The complainant is entitled to get back the mobile handset after curing the defects. If the opposite parties are failed to return the handset, opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.3,500/- that is the cost of the mobile handset. He is also entitled to get Rs.2,000/- as cost and compensation. Point No.2 is decided accordingly .

In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred Only) that is the cost of the mobile handset. They are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) as cost and compensation to the complainant. This Order is to be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this.

Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 12^th day of April 2013.

Date of Filing:-17.12.2011.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

Nil.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Service Bill. dt:12.09.2011.

A2. Warranty Card.

A3. Service Centre Directory.

A4.(Series). Lawyer Notice & Acknowledgment Card. dt:26.11.2011.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

Nil.