BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 141/2010 Filed on 12.05.2010

Dated : 31.07.2010

Complainant:

R. Jayakumar, Valiya Vilakathu Veedu, Near Govt. V.H.S.S, Vithura, Vithura P.O, Nedumangadu.

(Appeared in person)

Opposite parties :

1. Manager, Rajan Watch Company, Palayam Junction, Nedumangadu.

    

   (Appeared in person)

    

2. Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd., T.C 28/943 (43/1259), Kalpalathika, KPC Building, Punnapuram Road, Kaithamukku, Thiruvananthapuram-23.

    

3. ZTE Telecom India Pvt. Ltd., 2^nd Block, B-Block, Salapuria Hall Mark, Plot No. 15 & 16, Kudubeesana Halli, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 087.

This O.P having been heard on 27.07.2010, the Forum on 31.07.2010 delivered the following :

ORDER

SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER

The grievance of the complainant is as follows: The complainant had purchased a mobile handset of Reliance mobile company from the 1^st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs. 888/-. A warranty for one year was provided by the 3^rd opposite party for the same. Since the said handset was of substandard quality, it became defective and the same was entrusted for repair to the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre of 3^rd opposite party. The handset has not been returned yet rectifying the defects and hence this complaint for getting a new handset of same model along with compensation and costs.

1^st opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The purchase of the handset by paying Rs. 888/- from the 1^st opposite party by the complainant is admitted. The 1^st opposite party denies the allegation that a substandard quality phone has been sold to the complainant. Further 1^st opposite party contends that the phone sold to the complainant is as per his request only. The complainant has never contacted the 1^st opposite party after the said purchase of the handset and has never informed this opposite party regarding the complaints whatsoever. The complainant has no cause of action against this opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief from this opposite party. Hence 1^st opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint as against the 1^st opposite party with costs.

Opposite parties 2 & 3 remain exparte.

Complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 and P2. One witness on behalf of the complainant has also filed affidavit. Complainant and the witness have not been cross examined by opposite parties.

The issues that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant has been sold a substandard handset?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3. Reliefs and costs.

Points (i) to (iii):- The retail invoice-cash/credit dated 06.02.2010 which has been marked as Ext. P1 proves the purchase of a phone by the complainant by paying an amount of Rs. 888/-. The complainant has pleaded that he had entrusted the said handset to the 2^nd opposite party on 10.04.2010. Ext. P2 proves the same. As per Ext. P2 it could be seen that, the handset has been entrusted for 'audio problems'. Though the complainant has pleaded that the opposite party has noted customer abuse in Ext. P2, the same could not be made out from Ext. P2. Anyhow, the complainant has sworn that the handset has not been returned so far. One witness has also filed affidavit supporting the complainant's case that he was present with the complainant throughout the entire transactions of this case. The opposite party has not cross examined the complainant and the witness.

From the above discussions it could be concluded that, the phone purchased by the complainant became defective during the warranty period itself and complainant has not been returned the phone till the filing of this complaint. Since the handset is with the 2^nd opposite party, the procedure contemplated under Sec. 13(1) could not be followed. When there is no evidence adduced by the opposite parties to controvert the allegations levelled against them in the complaint, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his complaint against the opposite parties. The complainant who has contested the case in person has been forced to approach the Forum for redressal of his grievance caused due to the deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party. The act of the 2^nd opposite party in not returning the handset entrusted to them by the complainant definitely amounts to unfair trade practice. By taking into consideration the mental agony, physical discomfort, emotional sufferings and other injustice suffered by the complainant, we allow Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs.

The act of the 2^nd opposite party in not attending to and performing the service amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant could not use the phone defect free even during the warranty period. The desire of a new buyer has been disappointed by the act of opposite parties 2 & 3. From the very beginning itself, the complainant had to contact the 2^nd opposite party to rectify the defects. Hence we find that the phone sold to the complainant suffers from manufacturing defect. Hence we find that 2^nd opposite party is liable to refund the cost of the phone Rs. 888/- and opposite parties shall pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation along with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, complaint is allowed. 2^nd opposite party shall refund Rs. 888/- to the complainant. The opposite parties shall pay Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of order.

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 31^st day of July 2010.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 141/2010

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of retail invoice cash/credit dated 06.02.2010

P2 - Copy of Service Provider Information dated 10.04.2010.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb