IN  THE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  KOLLAM

            Dated this the    25^th  day of September 2018

Present: -    Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President

        Sri. M.Praveen Kumar,Bsc, LL.B ,Member

       CC.No.128/18

C.Ramakrishna Pillai                                  :         Complainant

Chettiyathuputhen veedu

Puliyoorvanchi thekku,Edakulangara P.O

Karunagappally, Kollam

V/s

1.The Proprietor                                         :         Opposite parties

Friends mobiles, Pattathuvila Plaza

Vadayattukotta road, Kollam-1

2. The  Proprietor

City Phones

(Lenova authorised service centre)

Mannaniya Complex, Chinnakkada, Kollam

3. The Proprietor

 Cell care, Pulliman Junction,

Karunagappally.

ORDER

E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , President

          This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

          The complainant on 18.08.17 purchased one Lenovo mobile phone by paying Rs.5700/- from the mobile shop of the 1^st opposite party.  While he was using the mobile phone it was came to his notice that even after fully charging the battery the charge will exhaust within one hour.  That when a number  and name is saved in the mobile it will show in the display board twice.  Hence the storage facility of the name and number has been exhausted and now  if a number and name is saved an earlier number and name will be get automatically

2

deleted.  If the set is made off after completing the call the same number will again automatically dialled which will caused harassment to that person called.  It is very difficult to switch off the set after making telephone call and therefore the complaint will be forced to power off the set.  If the alarm is set for a particular time that time will automatically changed and alarm will sound in an unexpected time and will not work at the expected  time set at the mobile phone.  If a number is dialled connection of that number will be received after a few minutes.

          In view of the above defects the complainant brought the said mobile phone to the 2^nd opposite party authorised service centre of the Lenovo mobile phone company and explained the above defects experienced by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party.  By hearing the above complaint 2^nd opposite party suggested to change the software and accordingly the software was  changed on the same day.  But the data saved in the mobile phone has been deleted.  But no defect has been cured.  In spite of the above defect he managed to use the mobile phone for a few more days and again on 08.01.18 he approached the 2^nd opposite party and requested to replace the mobile phone.  But the 2^nd opposite party suggested to change the software again.  Accordingly the complainant agreed and change the software.  But invane.  On 27.03.18 he approached the 3^rd opposite party service centre and explained  the above facts.  But on verification it is seen that the change of software has not been updated in the computer software.  Therefore  the 3^rd  opposite party suggested to change the software again.  The complainant agreed and 3^rd opposite party changed the software and also recorded the work carried out by them in the computer network by entering a code  SOIN  0894271803300002.  In spite  of all these the defects of the mobile phone was not cured.  The complainant  is  the District Secretary of the Kerala State Service Pensioner’s Association.  As  the mobile phone is in disorder the  complainant  has  experienced  much  difficulties   and 

3

sustained mental agony and sufferings.  In the circumstance the complainant prays to order the opposite parties to pay Rs.5700/- being the price of the mobile phone  paid  by  him  and  also  compensation  to  the  tune of  Rs.7000/.

In spite of  serving notice to opposite party No.1 to 3, they have not turned up nor filed any written version.  Hence the opposite party No.1 to 3 has been set exparte.

          The complainant filed proof affidavit and got marked Ext.P1  and P2 documents. Heard the complainant and perused the records.

          The complainant has filed affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.P1 and P2 documents.  Ext.P1 is the tax invoice issued by 1^st opposite party while the complainant purchased Lenovo A2016 new mobile phone   bearing IME:865230030/29492.  Ext.P2 is the warranty information slip.  Accordingly the hand set purchased  by the complainant is having warranty of 1 year.  It is clear from the pleadings and proof affidavit filed by the  complainant that the mobile hand set purchased from the 1^st opposite party by paying Rs.5700/- as  on 15.08.2017 has become defective. The nature of defects has been pleaded and proved by the complainant would indicate that the  same are manufacturing defects of the hand set.  The defect has been noticed immediately after he started to use the same and within 8 days of the purchase of mobile hand set from the 1^st opposite party the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party service centre (on 23.08.2017) and explained the defects.  Though 2^nd opposite party has attempted to cure the defects, the same has not been cured.  However the complainant managed to use the same till 08.01.18.  After 5 and odd months  he again approached the 2^nd opposite party and also demanded to replace the mobile phone by a defect free one.  However the 2^nd opposite party again made the complainant to believe that he will cure the defects by change the software.  But the defect has not been cured in spite of the 2^nd repair  made by the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence the complainant

4

on  27.08.18 which is after 7 and odd months of the purchase of mobile phone approached the 2^nd opposite party service centre  and explained the defects and the steps taken by 2^nd opposite party to cure the defects.  The 3^rd opposite party also changed the software of the mobile phone set and entered the fact in the computer network by assigning code No. SOIN  0894271803300002.  But in spite of the attempt made by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties service centre and the defects have not been cured.  It is also brought out in evidence that as the mobile  phone  purchased by him by paying Rs.5700/- (as per  Ext.P1 invoice) cannot be  used properly due to its defects and those defects are apparently manufacturing defects of the mobile phone.  The 1^st opposite party has sold the defective mobile phone to the complainant by issuing Ext.P1 invoice.  The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are authorised service centre of Lenovo mobile phone  who failed to make the mobile phone defect free.  Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 to 3.  Therefore the complainant is entitled to get the mobile phone replaced by a new defect free mobile phone or to get its price refunded.  It is also clear from the available materials that the complainant has sustained monitory loss and mental agony and other sufferings due to the use of defective Lenovo mobile  phone sold by 1^st opposite party.  Therefore the complainant is also entitled to get compensation also from the opposite parties.

          In the result the complaint stands allowed in the following terms.

          The opposite party No.1 is directed to replace the defective mobile phone purchased from that shop as per Ext.P1 invoice within 30 days from the date of this order or to  repay the price ie,Rs.5700/-  to the complainant  within that period.  Opposite party No.1 to 3 are further directed to pay compensation to the

5

tune of Rs.6000/- to the complainant within 30 days from today.  The opposite party No.1 to 3 are also directed  to pay Rs.2000/- as costs of the proceedings to the complainant. 

The complainant is directed to return the defective mobile phone to the 1^st opposite party within 3 weeks from today and in such event the 1^st opposite party  shall replace a new mobile phone of the same price and same facilities or to repay Rs.5700/- to the complainant within next 10 days.  In case the opposite party no.1 to 3 fail to comply with the directions within 45 days from today the complainant is  entitled to  recover Rs.11700/- along with costs  with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of  complaint till realisation from the opposite party No.1 to 3 and from their assets and also entitled to  proceed against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Dictated to the  Confidential Assistant  Smt.Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Forum on this the  25^th   day of  September  2018.       

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

           M.Praveen Kumar:Sd/-

            Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                    SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1                  :         Tax Invoice

Ext.P2                  :         Warranty information slip

Witness examined for the opposite party:-Nil

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

                                                                                  M.Praveen Kumar:Sd/-

                                                                                   Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                    SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT