By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:

Brief of the complaint:- The complainant purchased a mobile phone from opposite party No.1 on 08.09.2014. After one week it became defective. Complainant entrusted the mobile phone to opposite party No.2's shop and they repaired it. After few days it again became defective. As per the instruction given by the opposite party No.2, the complainant entrusted the mobile set to opposite party No.3 the authorized service centre of the Micromax on 27.09.2014. On 17.10.2014 opposite party No.3 returned the mobile phone after cured the defects but unfortunately it again stops its functioning. Thereafter opposite parties were not ready to repair the handset. This caused many inconveniences and difficulties to the complainant. Hence filed this complaint.

2. Notice served to opposite parties but they were not appeared before the Forum. Hence they set ex-parte on 15.12.2014 and proceeded with the case.

3. On perusal of complaint and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

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

2. Relief and Cost.

4. Point No.1:- Complainant filed chief affidavit and Ext.A1 to A3 and MO-1 were marked. Ext.A1 is the purchase Bill dated 08.09.2014. Ext.A2 is the Warranty Card. Ext.A3 is the print out of Text Messages. MO-1 is the defective Mobile Phone. Three times complainant got messages from opposite party No.3 stating that they repaired the handset. When complainant approached opposite party No.3 to take back the repaired mobile phone, it is found unrepaired, actually this was false messages. According to the complainant opposite party No.2 sent this messages to trouble him.

5. On perusal of documents and MO-1 the Forum found that this mobile phone became defective immediately after the purchase and this complaint is within the warranty period. So that opposite parties are responsible to cure the defects or return the mobile phone with a new one. Instead of that opposite parties caused many inconveniences and difficulties to the complainant. This act of the opposite parties are nothing but deficiency of service. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- The Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant hence complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation from the opposite parties.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay cost of the mobile phone ie Rs.4,200/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Two Hundred) only to the complainant. Opposite party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only towards cost of the proceedings and the opposite party No.3 is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only as compensation. This Order must be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days 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 11^th day of February 2015.

Date of Filing:01.11.2014.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/- MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1. Asok Kumar. V.G (Proof affidavit)

Witness for the Opposite Party:-

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Purchase Bill. dt:08.09.2014.

A2. Warranty Card.

A3. Printout of Text Messages.

MO1. Mobile Phone.

Exhibits for the opposite party:-

Nil.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

a/-