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

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile set with a new one or to get back the price of the mobile set with compensation due to the supply of defective mobile set.

2. Brief of the complaint:- On 06.09.2014 complainant purchased a Micromax A121 phone bearing IMEI No. 911367151972339 which is having one year guarantee with its accessories for Rs.8,616.19 as per invoice No. MDY - 382 from 1^st opposite party. The above mobile set was functioning properly till 18.09.2014 and all of a sudden the said mobile phone became switched off on that day night around 9 p.m. The very next day complainant approached 1^st opposite party with the defective mobile and demanded to replace the mobile set. 1^st opposite party tried to switch on the mobile but failed. 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that if the defect occurs within seven days of purchase, then only it could be replaced. Complainant approached service centre at Kalpetta, Trident Arcade Electronic Bazar as directed by 1^st opposite party and requested to replace the mobile set after informing 2^nd opposite party the manufacturer. But they were not ready to replace the mobile. After that complainant issued lawyer notice to 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party received the lawyer notice on 29.09.2014 and no reply was sent. As a consumer complainant suffered many hardships and losses due to the deficiency in service of opposite parties. Opposite parties are equally responsible for the hardships and losses suffered by the complainant. Complainant could not perform his duties with the defective set and caused a loss of Rs.50,000/-. 1^st opposite party as the dealer and 2^nd opposite party as the Manufacturer are equally liable to give compensation for the losses. Complainant is ready to produce the defective mobile phone before the Honorable Forum. Therefore it is humbly prayed that, order may be passed against the opposite parties. To refund the price of the Micromax A1Z1 mobile or replace the mobile set as per the invoice No. MDY- 382 dated 06.09.2014. To pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. To pay the cost of this petition.

3. Notices were served to opposite parties, opposite party No.2 is set ex-parte on 29.12.2014 and opposite party No.1 filed version and stated that it is admitted that this opposite party have sold a Micromax A 121 mobile handset to this complainant on 06.09.2014 for a sum of Rs.8,616/-. The allegation of the complainant that the handset is having one year guarantee with its accessories is incorrect. This handset is only having one year service warranty and not for its accessories. But the allegation of the complainant that on 18.09.2014, the handset became switched off and he approached this opposite party and when this opposite party tried to switch on the mobile but failed is false and vexatious, hence denied. The further allegation of the complainant that as per the direction of this opposite party he approached the service centre at Kalpetta named "Trident Arcade Electronic Bazar" as directed by this opposite party is not correct. The authorized service centre of Micromax branded handst is M/s. A2Z mobiles, Opposite to Municipal Bus stand, Kalpetta, Wayanad. If at all this opposite party directed to a customer to who is having problem in Micromax handset, this opposite party definitely directs to the above said service centre. This opposite party is totally unaware of the alleged service centre in which the complainant had done the service.

4. The allegation of the complainant that the handset become switched frequently and can be attended by the authorized service centre if he approaches properly and it shall be rectified soon from the authorized service centre. But in this case the intention of the complainant that without approaching the authorized service centre in a proper way he intending to replace the handset and making huge amount out of it without a genuine reason. This opposite party categorically stated that we have never done and deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in this matter. Moreover the allegation of the complainant that to replace the handset and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- is unwarranted and unjustifiable.

5. This opposite party is only an authorized distributor and sales point of Samsung handset and the service was done by authorized service centers in various areas. This opposite party have never directed the complainant to Trident Arcade Electronic Bazar, Kalpetta. The authorized service centre is A2Z Mobiles, Kalpetta, Opposite to Muncipal Bus stand, Wayanad. The complainant had approached a wrong service centre for servicing the handset. Despite the correct advice of this opposite party, the complainant went to a wrong service centre. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A6 documents were marked. Ext.A1 is the purchase invoice of the disputed mobile, the price of the mobile is Rs.8,616.19/- and there is address of the service centre is shown as Trident Arcade, Electronics Bazar, Kalpetta. Ext.A2 is the Warranty card, which shows one year warranty. Ext.A3 is the lawyer notice and Ext.A4 is the Postal receipt and Ext.A5 is the Acknowledgment Card. Ext.A6 is the Reply Notice. Mobile phone and accessories produced and marked as MO-1 series. Opposite party No.1 also filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the version and examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 and B2 documents were marked. Ext.B1 and B2 are the Authorization letter given by the opposite party No.1 General Manager and Manager to one Mr. Yoonus and one Yoonus for giving evidence.

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

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

8. Point No.1:- Opposite party No.1 stated in his version that he had never directed the complainant to approach Trident Arcade, Electronics Bazar, Kalpetta. The authorized service centre is A2Z Mobiles, Kalpetta, opposite to Municipal Bus Stand, Kalpetta, Wayanad. But in the Ext.A1 the service centre shown as Trident Arcade, Electronics Bazar, Kalpetta, this itself is a deficiency of service. As per Ext.A1 and as per the direction of opposite party No.1 the complainant approached the service centre which is mentioned in the Ext.A1. It is a clear case of deficiency of service from the side of opposite party No.1. The other allegation in the complaint that after intimating the matter to the manufacturer, the complainant approached the service centre but the service centre were not ready for replace the mobile set. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 again but as per the version the opposite party No.1 he is directed the complainant to approach A2Z Mobiles, Kalpetta, opposite to Municipal Bus Stand, Kalpetta, Wayanad instead of Trident Arcade Electronics Bazar, Kalpetta as per the Ext.A1. As per the address given in Ext.A1 complainant approached the service centre after informing the manufacturer, the service centre not ready to replace the mobile set. More

over after informing the matter to the manufacturer by the complainant and after receiving the Notices and copy of complaint from the Forum not appearing before the Forum by the opposite party No.2 we feel that the 2^nd opposite party also playing unfair trade practice. All the above acts of the opposite parties are clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.

9. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the 2^nd opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party is liable to replace the mobile set or to refund the value and also liable to pay cost and compensation to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the 2^nd opposite party is directed to replace the mobile set with a new one or to refund the price of the mobile set ie Rs.8,616/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Sixteen) and also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as cost of the proceedings. On receipt of new mobile set or the value of mobile set, the complainant is directed to return the MO-1 series to the 2^nd opposite party. 2^nd opposite party is directed to comply the Order within one month 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 8^th day of August 2015.

Date of Filing:31.10.2014.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1. Sunij. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1. Yoonus. Manager, 3G Mobile World, Mananthavady.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Retail Invoice. Dt:06.09.2014.

A2. Warranty Card.

A3. Copy of Lawyer Notice. Dt:25.09.2014.

A4. Postal Receipt.

A5. Acknowledgment Card.

A6. Reply Notice. Dt:07.11.2014.

MO-1 Series. Mobile Phone and accessories.

Exhibits for the opposite parties:-

B1. Authorization Letter. Dt:25.05.2015.

B2. Authorization Letter. Dt:25.05.2015.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

a/-