By. Smt. Reninol Mathew, Member:-
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 to replace the defective mobile phone with a new one and for compensation and cost of this proceedings.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant purchased a 'Karbonn Mobile K9' from opposite party's shop on 15.01.2013 of worth Rs.1,800/-. At the time of purchase opposite party offered one year warranty to the above phone. Then the very next day itself it showed some irregularities in its functioning. The complainant approached opposite party and requested to replace the mobile phone with a new one. On that day opposite party insisted that to use it for another one week thereafter he will settle the issue. As per the request of the opposite party complainant used this mobile phone for another one week. But within this period the condition of this mobile phone became worse. Again complainant approached opposite party and reported this, but that day opposite party behaved in an indecent manner and stated that he is not ready to repair the mobile phone. This resulted many inconveniences and loss to the complainant. Complainant alleged that the act of the opposite party is deficiency of service and hence he filed this complaint.
3. Notice served to opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed version denying all these averments in the complaint. Opposite party stated that complainant approached the opposite party after one month of purchase with the problem of memory card. It is found that the memory card was inserted not properly, then opposite party inserted the memory card in proper way. That time complainant demanded for a new mobile phone, but opposite party advised the complainant that if any complaint persists to approach the authorized service center of Karbonn Mobiles. But in this case complainant never approached the authorized service center of Karbonn Mobiles. This opposite party is only a dealer, they were not dealing with service problems. When complainant approached the opposite parties after one month of purchase the mobile phone was in good condition. If any defects was there in this phone it is due to the mishandling. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence he prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. On considering the complaint, version and documents the following points are to be considered:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed chief affidavit and examined as PW1. Ext.A1 and MO1were marked. Opposite party is examined as OPW1. Ext.A1 is the Bill dated 15.01.2013 of Rs.1,800/-. On perusal of Ext.A1 it is seen that complainant purchased MO1 from the shop of opposite party. Opposite party also admitted that the complainant approached him after one month of purchase due to some error in the insertion of the memory card. Opposite party further submitted that if there is any service problems in his mobile phone he should approach the authorized service center but complainant never approached the authorized service center of the Karbonn Mobiles. This means that there is no serious defect in his mobile phone. On going through the evidence we finds that complainant not taken effective steps to cure the defects if any in his mobile phone. The defect of the mobile phone is not admitted by the opposite party. But MO1 is produced before the Forum, on verification of the MO1 it is found defective. On considering the evidence we assume that the dealer cannot wash off his hands after making a sale. Consumer primarily concerned with the dealer. For each and every minor defects the consumer is not intended to approach the manufacturer or the service center. Hence dealers are responsible to take initiative to cure the minor defects of the products. So we finds that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
7. Point No.2:- The Point No.1 is found in favor of the complainant, hence the opposite party is directed to replace the defective mobile phone with a new one with cost and compensation. The Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to replace the defective mobile phone with a new one and to pay Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) as cost and compensation to the complainant. The complainant is directed to return the MO1 to the opposite party. This Order must be complied by both the parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of July 2014.
Date of Filing:27.02.2013.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Lajeesh @ Rajeesh. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
OPW1. Shiju. Business.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Cash Bill. Dt:15.01.2013.
MO1. Mobile Phone.
Exhibits for the opposite Parties.
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
