SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
Bereft of unnecessaries, the case of the complainant Sri.Ramakrishnan is that he purchased a Mobile Phone,Videocon dual sim with cam-VI 325 mob from the shop of opposite party for Rs.1800/- on 6-2-2012 with one year warranty within a month the speaker got complaint and display was not clear. When the complainant approached opposite party No.1, the seller refused to give service and ask him to go himself to the service centre opposite party No.2 at Kasaragod. The complainant entrusted the phone to opposite party No.2. After repair also the mobile has charging complaint again entrusted to opposite party No.2 on 9-7-2012 and was returned on 26-09-2012, but did not repaired and returned to the complainant. Complainant faced much difficulties due to the irresponsible act of opposite parties. Hence the complaint.
2. Notices to opposite parties 1 & 2 sent by registered post with acknowledgement due. Notices to opposite party No.1 duly served. Notice to opposite partyNo.2 returned unserved. Name of opposite party No.1 called absent set exparte. Complainant filed a memo stating that he is not claiming any relief against opposite party No.2. Complainant examined as PW1. Exts A1 to A3 marked. Ext.A1 is the warranty card. Ext.A2 is the service centre directory. Ext.A3 is the copy of the receipt. Complainant as PW1 deposed in tune with the complaint. He deposed that he has faced much difficulties due to the irresponsible deficient service rendered by opposite party No.1.
3. Denial of after sale service of a mobile phone within its warranty period is a serious deficiency on the part of opposite parties. Now a days the mobile companies are marketing huge number of mobile phones without any proper adequate test. As a result, the complaints against the manufacturing defect of the mobile phones are increasing. But it is quite unfortunate that opposite party No.2 did not even care to care to respond to the notice issued by this Forum. The printed warranty card is not a conclusive proof that the product is subjected to any proper adequate test. It is mandatory upon every manufacturer to enclose a warranty card showing its IMEI number of the mobile phone they offered for sale to prove that the said particular unit is also subjected to proper adequate test before issuing warranty.
4. Considering the mental agony the complainant suffered because of the defects occurred to his newly purchased mobile phone worth Rs.1800/- within a month of its purchase. We feel that this is a fit case to award compensation for his mental agony and sufferings.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority V M.K. Gupta reported in 1994 AIR 787 and in the case Ghaziabad Development Authority V. Balbir Sing reported in (2004) 5SCC 65 has held compensation may constitute actual loss or expected losses and may extend to compensation for physical, mental even emotional sufferings, insult, injury or loss and the FORA constituted under consumer Protection Act enable Consumer to claim compensation for any injustice suffered by him. This is a fit case to award compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and injustice he suffered.
In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite party No.1 is directed to refund the purchase price of Videocon Duel sim cam V1325 Rs.1800/- with 12% interest from the date of complaint till payment together with a compensation of Rs.3000/-. On receipt of the amount the complainant is directed to return back the mobile phone to the 1st opposite party. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.Warranty Card.
A2.Service Centre Directory
A3.Copy of receipt.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
