IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of June, 2016
Filed on 23.03.2016
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.92/2016
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Muhammed Niyas 1. Universal Tele Communication
Lilayam House, Ward No. IV India Pvt. Ltd., Kayamkulam
Karuvatta Panchayath Branch, represented by the
Karuvatta Village Manager
Karthikappally Taluk
Alappuzha District 2. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. A – 31
(By Adv. Jayan. P.) Mohan Co-operative Industrial
Estate, Mathura Road
New Delhi – 110 044
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The facts of the complaint in short are as follows:-
The complainant purchased a mobile phone from the first opposite party on 17.4.2015 for Rs.19,000/-manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. The phone became defective on 28.5.2015 and the same was intimated to the opposite party and the opposite party repaired the phone, but within two days it became again defective and the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and requested either to repair the phone or to replace the phone. But the opposite party failed to do so. On 2.6.2012 the complainant issued a lawyer’s notice to the first opposite party demanding to replace the defective phone with a new one but in vain. According to the complainant, he could not use the phone he sustained much mental agony and inconvenience and hence filed this complaint.
2. Notice was served to the 2nd opposite party but did not appear before the Forum. First opposite party represented, but did not file version and also absent for the subsequent proceedings. Hence the opposite parties 1 and 2 are set ex-parte.
3. The evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. The complainant produced the mobile phone before the Forum which was marked as Ext.MO1.
4. Considering the allegations of the complainant the forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief sought for?
5. Point Nos.1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone from the first opposite party for an amount of Rs.19,000/- on 17.4.2015 manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. Immediately after the purchase the product became defective, but the opposite parties failed to repair the product after getting an intimation regarding the complaint. Thereafter the complainant sent a legal notice to the first opposite party, but in vain, hence filed this complaint, seeking replacement of the defective phone together with compensation and costs.
6. Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. Ext.A1 is the bill dated 17.4.2015, Ext.A2 is the copy of lawyer notice, Ext.A3 is the postal receipt and Ext.A4 is the acknowledgement card. On a perusal of the affidavit and documents it can be seen that the complainant purchased the phone on 17.4.2015 which has one year warranty. During the warranty period it became defective and the defect has been intimated to the opposite parties. The complainant produced the phone before the Forum. The documents produced would show that the case of the complaint is genuine. The complainant could not use the phone, and the defect arose within the warranty period. The opposite parties were given sufficient time to repair the product but they did not turn up. Since the opposite parties failed to repair the product even after getting intimation amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get the phone replace. So the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, the opposite parties jointly and severally directed to replace the disputed mobile phone with a new one of the same model/price with fresh warranty. The complainant is directed to return the defective phone simultaneously. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2016.
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Bill dated 17.4.2015
Ext.A2 - Copy of legal notice
Ext.A3 - Postal receipt
Ext.A4 - A/d card
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
