By Smt. Beena. M, Member:

This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2. Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-   The case of the complainant is that 15-08-2018 he was purchased a Mobile phone  manufactured by the                 2^nd opposite party through their online site seller Flipkart by paying  Rs.11,999/- vide invoice No.FABBH31900297765. One year warranty has been provided by the second opposite party for the mobile phone. The 1^st opposite party is an authorized service   centre  of   the   2^nd opposite  party   in   Wayanad   District,   believing   the assurances given by them through advertisements the complainant opted to purchase the same product from them.

            3.  After  one month of purchase the mobile phone went out of order due to bend on the set and due to that the complainant could not be used it in a proper way. And the complainant directly approached the 1^st opposite party to repair the defects. But he has not accepted the mobile phone by stating lame excuses. Afterwards the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party through toll free number. But 2^nd opposite party also had not taken any positive steps to solve the problem of the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party being the authorized service

center and the 2^nd opposite party being the manufacturer of the product are jointly and severally liable to repair or replace the mobile set with in a reasonable time and without causing much inconvenience to the complainant. The above acts of the opposite parties are unfair trade practice and negligent service. So, they are liable to repair or replace the defective mobile set or repay the cost of the mobile set with 12% interest from the date of purchase and pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the loss of business, inconvenience, mental agony etc. and pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost.

            4. After the registration of the case the Forum issued notice to the opposite party and but they did not turn to appear before this Forum and hence their name called and set them ex-party.

5.  The evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents.  Complainant was examined as PW-1 and Exhibit A1 and MO1 marked. Ext.A1 is the invoice dated 15/08/2018. Ext.A1 is the evidence showing the transaction.   

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

  1. Whether the opposite party is liable to repair or replace the defective

          product or repay the purchase amount with interest?

    2. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

    3. Whether the complainant is entitle for getting compensation from the

         Opposite party?

    4.  Relief and cost.

7.  Point No. 1, 2:-  For the sake of convenience the point No.1 and 2 hereby considered and answered jointly.

            8. As already mentioned above the Opposite parties were set ex-party and hence there is no challenge regarding the Exhibit A-1 and MO-1.  The complainant had purchased the mobile from the flipkart at a price of Rs.11,999/- on 15/08/2018 evidenced by Ext.A1. The defect of the mobile would indicate that the complainant suffers from inherent manufacturing defect that too within the warranty period. Here the opposite party ought to have paid attention towards the lawful grievance of the complainant in which they failed. The above conduct of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service on their part. Therefore the second opposite party, the manufacturer is liable either replace the product with a new one or refund its price with interest.  Since the opposite parties are ex party in the proceedings the document produced by the complainant and the allegations set forth in the complaint and oral testimony are unchallenged.  The complainant had succeeded to prove his case. So the forum can safely conclude that deficiency of service happened

from the opposite parties part and the complainant had suffered inconveniences.    So, these points are answered against the Opposite parties.

9. Point No. 3:-  A mobile phone is now- a- days something of an essentially one who uses it. The complainant successfully proved his case by producing purchase receipt issued by the Opposite party. It has been understood that the opposite parties had failed to respond positively for the genuine need of the complainant.  The forum comes to a conclusion that the irresponsible attitude of the opposite parties is the violation of the natural justice and gross violation of the consumer protection laws.   So this point also answered against the opposite party.

10. Point No. 4 :-   Since the Points No.1 to 3 are found against the Opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and cost of the proceedings.

In the result,  the complaint is partly allowed as follows:-  Directing the second  opposite party to either replace the defective  mobile set with a new one of the same price  or repay Rs.11,999/- (Rupees Eleven thousand Nine hundred and Ninety Nine only)  with 6 % per annum.  Opposite Party  is also directed to  pay Rs. 2,000/-  (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only)  as cost of the proceedings within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17  day of January 2020.

Date of filing: 30.11.2018.

PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                                    MEMBER :    Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant.:-

PW1.              Sabin Augustin                    Complainant.          

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

Nil.     

Exhibits for the Complainant:    

A1.                  Tax Invoice.                          dt:15.08.2018.

MO1.             Mobile Phone.       

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

Nil.