Date of filing :25-09-07 Date of order : 26-11-08 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.57/07 Dated this, the 26th day of November 2008 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER K.R.Sivanandan, “Arunodyam”, Pachambla, Ichilangod.Po, } Complainant Mangalpady, 671324. (In Person) The Owner/Proprietor, Amrit Electronics } Opposite party (Dealer of Motrola Mobile Set in Kasaragod) MG.Road, Kasaragod. (Adv.Madhavan Mangankad, Kasaragod) O R D E R SMT.P.RAMADEVI, MEMBER The facts of the case in brief are as follows: That the complainant K.R.Sivanandan had purchased a Motorola C 261 series Mobile Phone set from opposite party on 8-12-06 for an amount of Rs.4000/-. Within two months of its purchase, the set became defective. i.e, cell info display was not functioning and the volume was low and the net work problem was not cleared. Then on 2-9-2005 he had given the set for repair and after repair the same was returned on 16-05-2007 to him on changing the charger. Even then the net work problem and the low volume problem remained un cleared. Again on 25-7-07 the set was again given to the dealer for service and he received the set after repair on 13-09-08. Still then the defect is not rectified and the complainant approached the opposite party for replacing the Mobile set with new Mobile set. But the opposite party was not ready to replace the defective mobile set with a new one instead of that he insulted the complainant. Hence the complaint is filed for necessary relief. 2. The complaint was taken on file and the opposite party duly served the notice and appeared through counsel and filed his written version. In his written version he admits the purchase of Mobile phone set by the complainant but he is denied other facts stated in the complaint. The opposite party had taken a contention that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. According to the opposite party he is selling the set only as a retail out let of the main dealer at Kanhangad and replacement is to be given by the Manufacturer through its main dealer. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3 After considering the facts stated in the complaint and in the written version the following points are raised for consideration. 1) Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 3) If so what the relief and what is the order as to costs and compensation? 4. The evidence in this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 the complainant and Exts A1 to A4 and opposite party is examined as DW1 and no document is marked. Ext.A1 is the cash bill issued to complainant by the opposite party. Ext.A2 is the warranty card. Ext.A3 and A4 are the Job sheet cum receipt issued by UCOM Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The complainant was cross-examined by the counsel for opposite party and the opposite party also faced cross examination by the complainant. 5. The first point to be considered is whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? The opposite party had produced the address of the manufacturer and the main dealer. But the complaint is seeking relief only from the opposite party and he has not taken any steps to implead the manufacturer and the main dealer. 6. The Hon’ble National Commission in the decision II (2006) CPJ 188 (NC) observed that ”contention that the dealer once accepted the amount and sent to the manufacturer, dealer not liable to refund not accepted. If dealer required to pay said amount it is open to him to recover the same from the manufacturer. 7. Hence the liability of the opposite party towards the complainant is not exhasusted due to the reason that manufacturer and the main dealer is not made as parties to the proceedings. Hence the issue regarding non-joinder of necessary party is answered accordingly. 8. Secondly whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? According to the complainant the mobile set became defective within two months of its purchase. Ext.A3 and A4 reveals that the mobile set was brought for repair. More over during cross examination the opposite party admitted that the mobile phone set has got manufacturing defects. Only after two services the complainant demanded for replacement of the mobile set. One, who purchases a brand new mobile phone is expected to use it for his purposes without any disturbances and he need not to go always to the service center for the rectification of defects . Here the complainant approached the service center twice but there was no result. Hence he demanded the seller for replacement. But the seller is not ready to replace the mobile set. There is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the relief he prayed for. Hence we allow the complaint and the opposite party is directed either to replace the defective mobile phone with a new mobile phone worth Rs.4000/- or to refund Rs.4000/- being the value of the mobile phone. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards the cost of the proceedings. The opposite party can recover the said amount from the main dealer or from the manufacturer as the case may be if he wish so through appropriate proceedings. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. 8-12-06 Cash bill A2.Warranty card A3. Job Sheet Cum Receipt(Repair Centre) A4. Job Sheet Cum Receipt(Repair Centre) PW1. Shivanandan DW1.Dinesh K.Kamath Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
