CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.537/2013
Dated this the 30th day of October 2014.
( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB. : President)
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
ORDER
By G.Yadunadhan, President:
The case of the complainant is that complainant had purchased a mobile phone which is having the Fring service. The complainant was shown a mobile phone Samsung model No.5222 with EMEI No.354319055174557 and was made believe by this opposite party that the mobile phone will support the fring service. Believing the words of the opposite party the complainant purchased the mobile phone for a sum of Rs.4,700/- on the same day. But to the utter disappointment of the complainant the phone supplied by opposite party was not supporting the fring service. The complainant approached the shop of opposite party for getting it replaced by a given assurance that a new phone which supports the fring service will be given to the complainant. The complainant visited the shop of opposite party several times in order to get replaced the phone. But the opposite party was not willing to replace the phone with a new one supporting the Fring service. The complainant purchased the mobile phone for a huge price of Rs.4700/- only upon relaying the words of the opposite party that the phone will support the Fring service. The opposite party whereby selling the mobile phone with a false representation about the standard and service of the mobile phone committed the unfair trade practice towards the complaint. The opposite party where by not deliver a new phone having Fringe service has committed deficiency of service towards the complaint. Therefore complainant seeking relief against opposite party to deliver a new phone supporting fring service after taking back the phone given to the complainant or to pay back the amount of Rs.4,700/- and also pay compensation of Rs.5000/-
Opposite party after serving notice entered in appearance and filed their version stating that it is true that the complainant visited the shop and had purchase a Samsung mobile phone mentioned in the complaint. At the time of purchase complainant never enquired about the Fring system mentioned in the complaint. After one month use of the phone complainant compelled to replace the phone on the basis of non supporting fring system. As per the terms and conditions there is no provision to replace the phone once it used. Therefore no merit in the case, complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Points for consideration
- Whether any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
- Whether complainant is entitled to get any compensation from the opposite party? If so what is the relief and cost.
After receiving the version of opposite party case is substantially posted for evidence of the complainant. From 17.01.14 to 22.05.14 complainant was continuously absent not filed chief affidavit on behalf of the complainant. On perusal of the complaint itself shows there is no defects in the mobile hand set purchased from the complainant to the opposite party having fring system regarding the mobile hand set is. This type hand set was not supporting fringe service. Whether it requested by the complainant at any time for that no evidence was seen produced. Since the mobile hand set was using by the complainant without any defect Fora can not interfere in this matter by simply saying the allegation. Therefore no merit in this complaint, complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court this the 30th day of October 2014.
Date of filing:23.11.2013.
SD/- PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
