DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the  15^th day of September  2015

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

               : Smt.Suma.K.P.  Member                              Date of filing: 16/03/2015

                                                      (C.C.No.34/2015)         

Shajeer Faizal

S/o.Sainudheen,
Parakkal House,

Pochira, Puduppariyaram Post,

Palakkad – 678 731                                        -        Complainant

(By Adv.S.Ramesh) 

Vs

1.The Manager

    Mobile World Electronics (I) Pvt.Ltd.

    Mobile World, 11/1156,

    Ground Floor, NMR Complex,

    Near EMKEY Silks, T.B.Road,

    Palakkad 

2. The Manager,

    Agnus Mobile Care,

    Adam Complex,

    Shornur Road,

    Noorni, Palakkad – 678 014 

3.The  Manager,

    No.A 1 Nokia Telecom Sez,

    Sipcot Industrial  Park 3^rd Phase,

    Sriperumbudur,

    Kanchipuram – 602 105                              -        Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R.  President.

Brief facts of complaint.

On 30-6-2013 complainant has purchased a Nokia X mobile phone from 1^st opposite party for an amount of Rs.7,400/-. 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer of the mobile phone. 2^nd   opposite party is the service centre of 3^rd opposite party. Immediately after the purchase, the phone showed the problem of display. Then complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party to rectify the defects. The 2^nd opposite party cured the defects and returned the phone after 15 days. But after a few days these defects are shown. Then complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party and they repaired the phone and returned after again 15 days. Complainant submitted that at thirteen similar occasions the same problem was occurred and the same is still continued. Complainant further submitted that he had lost a better job opportunity on using this defective mobile.  The problem of the phone was occurred within the period of warranty i.e. within the period of one year.  Complainant further submitted that opposite parties neither replaced the mobile set nor refund the cost of the mobile even after repeated requests. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. By the act of opposite parties complainant has sustained huge financial loss and mental agony. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay a total sum of Rs.62,400/- to the complainant along with cost.

Complaint was admitted and was issued notice to all opposite parties. Notice to 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties served but they remained absent. Hence set exparte. 2^nd opposite party appeared. But he did not file version.

Complainant filed chief affidavit. Ext.A1 to A3 marked. MO1 also marked.

Te following issues are considered

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
2. If so, what is the relief?

Issues 1 & 2

 Heard complainant.   We have perused the documents produced by the complainant. The purchase of the mobile phone was proved as per Ext.A1 bill. Ext.A2series delivery notes issued by 2^nd  opposite party shows that the mobile phone had the defects of set heating, display lines on MMC not working, and display showing grains occasionally. These defects are occurred within 2-3 months of purchase of mobile phone that is within the warranty period. It is a clear proof of manufacturing defects of the mobile. Several times complainant approached opposite parties to replace mobile or refund the cost of the same. But they did not do so. From the evidence adduced by the complainant, we arrived at a conclusion that by selling defective products opposite parties committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. More over they did not take initiative  to replace the mobile or refund the cost of mobile.  Hence the opposite parties liable to compensate the complainant for the financial loss and mental agony sustained. No other evidence contrary to the evidence adduced by the complainant.

In the result complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.7,400/- (Seven thousand four hundred only) towards the cost of mobile phone, Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of proceedings.

Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which complainant is eligible for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.

On complying the order of the Forum, opposite parties have the right to get back the phone produced before the Forum.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 15^th day of September  2015.

                                                                                             Sd/-

                      Shiny.P.R.

                      President   

                          Sd/-

                      Suma.K.P.

                      Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1   -  Purchase Invoice dated 30/6/2014 issued by opposite party

Ext.A2  – Photocopy of  delivery notes (3 nos)  

Ext.A3   - Truecopy of Visa Cancellation document

 MO1 – Nokia Mobile Phone

Cost 

Rs.2,000/-allowed as cost of the proceedings.