BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 181/2013 Filed on 09.05.2013
Dated : 31.07.2013
Complainant:
Suresh Harries, Aaramam, V.P 5/1436, Kachani School Junctin, Nettayam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-13.
(Party in person)
Opposite party :
The Manager, Karbonn Care, Mass Tower, Opp: Sub Jail, Attakulangara, Manacaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-9.
This C.C having been heard on 20.07.2013, the Forum on 31.07.2013 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
The facts of the complaint are that complainant purchased a Karbonn K9 mobile phone from the opposite party, Minnus Mobile, Trivandrum on 10.07.2012 and that the said mobile phone became defective within 8 months of its purchase and further that complainant gave it for repair to opposite party on 28.03.2013. The opposite party informed the complainant that he would give it repaired within 15 days. The opposite party has not returned the said phone after repair to the complainant. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to give back his original mobile phone after repairs or a new phone in its place or to pay Rs. 1,900/- if the above two conditions are not satisfied. The complainant has also prayed for cost towards the expenses he has met with along with the price of sim contained in the phone which was given for repairs.
The opposite party, on being served neither entered appearance nor filed their version and hence ordered to be proceeded exparte.
The points that arise for consideration are:-
Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
Whether the phone is having serious manufacturing defects?
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs?
Point (i):- The complaint relates to the purchase of a mobile phone from the opposite party and the subsequent defects which were brought to the notice of the opposite party. Ext. P3 is the copy of the retail invoice which shows that it is purchased from a shop at Manacaud in Thiruvananthapuram district. The purchase value is only Rs. 1,900/-. Hence it is our considered view that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Points (ii) to (iv):- It has been the case of the complainant that the complainant purchased a mobile phone on 10.07.2012 from the opposite party for Rs. 1,900/- and copy of retails invoice was marked as Ext. P3 and as the said mobile phone became defective complainant had given the said mobile phone to opposite party for repairs. The complainant has alleged that the defect is on the main board and so the opposite party has sent it to Bangalore for repair and will be given within 15 days. Ext. P1 is the copy of the customer receipt issued by opposite party to complainant and it shows the warranty status 'in'. It is revealed that the opposite party has not returned the repaired mobile phone after 15 days and did not replace it. On further enquiry by the complainant the opposite party informed him that the mobile phone sent to Bangalore for repair was misplaced and another one was sent from there. The complainant refused to accept the said mobile phone and he insisted for his own mobile. The complainant sent Ext. P5 notice to the Manager, Karbonn Care, but no reply from them. Ext. P2 and P4 are the copy of postal receipt and acknowledgement card. As the said mobile phone is in the custody of the opposite party, complainant is not in a position to prove the nature of defects therein as stipulated under Sec. 13 (c) of the Consumer Protection Act. The onus is on the part of the opposite party to show that the said mobile phone is defect free. Opposite party did not turn up despite service of notice nor did file version. Complainant had spent Rs. 1,900/- for purchasing the mobile phone. No purpose of the complainant was served by the purchase of the mobile phone from the opposite party. Even after receiving the mobile phone in dispute by the opposite party for service, nothing headed forward. With the evidence produced by the complainant it is clear that the act of the opposite party in not returning the mobile phone in dispute after service to the complainant, would definitely amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Taking overall situation, we are of the view that equity and justice will be met if opposite party is directed to give the repaired mobile or a new set of the same and in failure to do so the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,900/- along with a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party shall give the repaired mobile or a new set and if it is not available an amount of Rs. 1,900/- along with Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation to the complainant. Opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of Rs. 1,900/- shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment with compensation.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31st day of July 2013.
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 181/2013
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
NIL
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of customer receipt dated 28.03.2013 issued by O.P
P2 - Copy of acknowledgement cards.
P3 - Copy of retail invoice dated 10.07.2012
P4 - Copy of postal receipt
P5 - Copy of letter issued by complainant to opposite party dated
24.04.2013.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
