SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

       This is a complaint filed  by the complainant U/S 12 of  Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the opposite parties to repay the value of mobile phone worth  Rs.21,000/- along with  compensation and cost  for the deficiency of service on their part.

   The case of the complainant in brief .

     The complainant is working  as a Radio Jockey. On 7/9/2017, for  her work, she  had purchased Galaxy J7  (3GB64GB) Gold Samsung mobile phone worth Rs. 21,000/- from 1^st OP  . On 19/9/2017  the complainant  send a live video to her face book account and the video was defective and being a Radio Jockey, she was insulted  by her friends while view  the  video.  The mobile phone become damaged within a week.  Then the complainant informed the mater to Ops and  customer care also.  Thereafter  each and every day the  function of the  mobile phone became more complicated and display damaged, a black spot was seen on the screen of the  phone.  Thereafter on  3/10/2017 the complainant approached 2^nd OP, the  authorized service centre of 3^rd OP for repairing the mobile phone.  But 2^nd OP not repair the phone and returned to the  complainant also .  So there is deficiency  of service  and unfair trade practice on the  part  of opposite parties.  Hence the complaint.

    The Ops entered appearance before the commission and submitted their written version.   Ist OP contended that they are only dealer of mobile phone,  Ops 2 &3 are responsible  for repair and warranty of the phone.  On 19/9/2017 the  mobile phone became defective and the complainant informed the matter to  1^st OP.  Moreover on 3/10/2017 the complainant produce the phone before 2^nd OP for repair.  3^rd OP contended that if there is any manufacturing defect caused, an expert evidence is required and the complainant is put to strict proof in support of complainant’s case.  So  3^rd OP is not liable  either to replace the phone or refund the price. There is no  deficiency of service on the  part of OPs and the complaint is liable to  be  dismissed with cost. 

       On the basis  of the rival contentions  by the pleadings the following  issues  were framed for consideration.

1. Whether there is  any deficiency of service  on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3. Relief and costs?

     The  evidence on merit  of the oral testimony of PW1 and marked  Exts A1 to A3 documents.  No oral evidence from the side  of  OPs and  no documents were marked .

Issue No.1:   The  Complainant adduced evidence before the Commission  by submitting  her chief affidavit in lieu of  her chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the  contentions in the version.  She was cross examined  as PW1 by opposite parties .  The documents Exts A1 to A3 were also  marked in her part to substantiate her case.       According to the complainant  the mobile phone was purchased on 7/9/2017 as per Ext.A1 bill from 1^st OP.  As per Ext.A2 on 3/10/2017 the  phone produced  before 2^nd OP the authorised service centre of 3^rd OP for repairing the mobile phone.  Hence it clear that the  phone  became damaged within one month .  So  the Ops bound  either to repair  the phone  at free of cost or to replace/refund .  Since the Ops denied to repair /replace the phone,  there is deficiency  of service on their part.

      The 3^rd OP  vehemently states that  there is no manufacturing defect and there is no deficiency of service on his part.  No test report or  evidence adduced before the commission to confirm the defect. On perusal  of the pleadings, documents and evidence, we the commission hold that the complainant purchased the mobile phone  on 7/9/2017 became defective on 19/9/2017, ie  within  1 ½  week after the date of purchase.  In cross examination PW1 states that XIcmÀ  F´msW¶v  I­p]nSn¡m³ service centre s\       F¸n¨p.  Rm³ phone Xpd¡m³ k½Xn¨nà  .   Moreover  in her evidence “ manufacturing defect  prove sN¿m³   Rm³ Hcp tcJbpw lmPcm¡nbn«nà  “ .  In re-examination  she admits that  Rm³ thsd Hcp shop  sImSp¯v     2019, October     repair sNbvXp.    display repair sNbvXp .  As per Ext.A3 on 19/8/2019 she  repair the display problem and  software change through one Bossini service centre.  Now  the phone is under working condition.    So we are of the considered view that the Ops 2&3 are not  liable  either to repair  or replace the set.  Ops 2&3 ‘s liabilities  exonerated in her evidence itself.  We hold that  there is privity of contract between 1^st OP dealer and the complainant.  We hold that  there is deficiency of service  and unfair trade practice  on the part of 1^st op.  Hence  issue No.1 is found  infavour of the complainant and answered accordingly.

Issue No.2&3:    As discussed above the mobile phone  purchased by the  complainant  became defective within  1 ½ week  after the purchase.  There is no expert proof  is required about the  manufacturing defect of the phone.  But it is admitted that the phone became defective, complaint to display problem and  later  cured it. So the complainant  is not entitled to get the  purchase price of the phone from  OP.No.1 because the phone  is  repaired and working condition. Now the complainant is using the phone also. Therefore we hold that the  1^st opposite party liable to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation  and Rs.2500/- as litigation cost .  Thus  the issue No.2&3 also accordingly answered.

      In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the1^st opposite party  to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation  and Rs.2500/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of  the order, failing which the complainant is  at liberty to execute the order as per the  provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Exts.

A1- cash Bill issued

A2-copy of acknowledgment of service request

A3- Service center’s receipt(service slip dtd.19/8/2019

  Sd/                                                  Sd/                                                      Sd/

PRESIDENT                              MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                      Molykutty Mathew.                        Sajeesh K.P

eva                                   

/Forwarded by Order/

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT