By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to get replace the mobile set and to get cost and compensation due to the supply of defective mobile set.

2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant purchased one GIONEE Mobile Phone (IME1 Number 864495020482060) from the 1^st opposite party on 06.11.2014 by paying Rs.10,600/-. At the time of purchase the 1^st opposite party stated to the complainant that the GIONEE Company Phone has got good feedback from the earlier customers and the company is giving warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase of the mobile phone with respect to mobile phone handset and six months for the accessories thereto and also stated to the complainant that the company has good reputation and good service centre network in India and if any manufacturing defects caused to the handset or the accessories during the warranty period, the opposite party No.1 and 2 will redress the defect in a speedy manner through the service centre without any cost or service charge. On 16.11.2014, the complainant noticed that a crack developed on the lower parts of the touch screen of the mobile handset and on same day it was enlarged to the upper end of the touch screen. The complainant on 17.11.2014 approached the 1^st opposite party with all necessary bills and warranty card and convinced the manufacturing defect of the mobile phone and requested the Opposite No.1 to repair the mobile handset or to replace the mobile handset with new one. But the 1^st opposite party, refused to receive the mobile phone for repair or to replace the same with a new mobile handset without any reason. The complainant informed the matter to the Opposite party No.2 through phone on 17.11.2014, regarding the complaint of the phone but it was unheard. The 1^st opposite party is the dealer of the mobile handset. The 2^nd opposite party is importer of the mobile handset. The complainant has been under great mental pressure all through particularly because of the extremely negligent attitude of the 1^st opposite party. The opposite party No.1 is miserably failed to discharge their obligation to the complainant. So the complainant has suffered loss and damage. The defect caused to the mobile handset is a manufacturing defect. The cause of action arose on 06.11.2014, the date on which the mobile handset was delivered to the complainant and on 16.11.2014 the date on which the handset caused damage and on 17.11.2014 the date on which the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for redressal of the damage and refused by the 1^st opposite party and when the 2^nd opposite party informed through phone on 17.11.2014.

3. It is therefore humbly prayed that the interest of Justice the opposite parties No.I and 2 may be directed to repair or replace the mobile phone with a new mobile phone to compensate the complainant by paying Rs.5,000/- for the mental pressure agony caused to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of legal proceedings charge to the complainant.

4. Notices were served to opposite parties and opposite party No.1 appeared and filed version, opposite party No.2's notice served on 15.12.2014 and he was not appeared and not filed version. Hence opposite party No.2 is called ex-parte on 18.02.2015. Opposite party No.1 stated in his version that the sale is admitted but at the time of sale itself all the conditions were explained to the complainant and he admitted the same. No responsibility for the defects of the mobile except the manufacturing defect will be born by the dealer or the company. The said complaint is caused due to the rough use of complainant and due to a fall of mobile phone. This opposite party has only a responsibility of service after sale. If there any manufacturing defect complainant can approach the service centre at Sulthan Bathery named IVA System, Jubilee Building, Mysore road. The distributor of the mobile set is M. K. Agencies, Panamaram, Wayanad district. Warranty card was also given to the complainant at the time of purchase and if any manufacturing defect is there the opposite party No.2 is only responsible to replace the same. Hence prayed before the Forum to dismiss the complaint on compensatory cost to this opposite party No.1.

5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1, A2 and MO-1 is marked. Ext.A1 is the Warranty card issued by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant, which shows the warranty period up to 05.11.2015. Ext.A2 is the Bill issued by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant for Rs.10,600/-. Opposite party No.1 has filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the version.

6. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the

side of opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

7. Point No.1:- The allegation of the complainant is that the set is having manufacturing defect and it is not defended by the opposite party No.1 company or manufacturer. Hence the allegation can be believed in total. Hence the Point No.1 is found accordingly.

8. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the opposite party No.2, opposite party No.2 is liable to replace the mobile set and to pay cost and compensation. The Point No.2 is found accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.2 is directed to replace the mobile set with a new one and to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) as cost of the proceedings. The opposite party No.2 is directed to comply the Order within one month from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the whole amount. On complying the Order the opposite parties can take back the MO-1 from the Forum.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 18^th day of August 2015.

Date of Filing: 03.12.2014. PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/- MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1. Rajeshkumar. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Warranty Card.

A2. Cash Bill. Dt:06.11.2014.

MO-1. Mobile Phone.

Exhibits for the opposite parties:-

Nil.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

a/-