By Jyothikumar, Member.

 

            The petition was filed on18.02.2011. The complainant had purchased an e Tech 717 pro Mobile phone for an amount of Rs.5500/- from the first opposite party on 12.04.2010 as per bill numbered A-289. At the time of purchase opposite party-1 had assured the complainant that the mobile is of good quality and long lasting. The Ist opposite party had also provided a warranty card and book to the complainant. Second opposite party the manufacturer of e Tech mobiles and the third opposite party is the authorized service partner of the OP No.2. Within few months of purchase the complainant noticed there was a defect in the display of the mobile phone . This defect had occurred to the mobile phone during the guarantee period. As per the request of the opposite party No.1 the complainant gave the mobile phone for repair to the third opposite party on 02.12.2010. On the next day when the complainant contacted the third opposite party they told the complainant that since the display has been broken they will not be able to repair the mobile phone and returned the phone to back to the complainant. The complainant contacted the Ist opposite party on several occasions and requested him to either replace the mobile phone or to repair the same. But the Ist opposite party refused to do so. The complainant is alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for not get it repaired or substituted.

            Notice sent to opposite parties No.1 to 3, OP No.1&2 did not appear before the forum hence called absent and set exparte. OP No.3 filed version  denying the liability. Meanwhile the OP No.3 paid Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Complainant had received the amount with satisfaction. Hence OP-3 is excluded from the party array. 

            Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 were marked. From the evidence and exhibits the case of the complainant is proved. Before filing the complaint the complainant had informed the deficiency in service, OP No.1 did not take any steps to redress the grievance in the complaint. Hence the forum is of the opinion that the OP No.1 is deficient in their service.

            In the result petition is allowed and OP No.1 is liable to pay cost of the mobile phone Rs.5500/-(Rupees five thousand five hundred only) and a cost of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. On paying the amount OP-1 can get back the mobile phone from the complainant.

 

Pronounced in the open court this is the 30^th  day of September 2011.

Date of filing:18.02.2011.

 

 

               SD/- PRESIDENT                  SD/-MEMBER                   SD/-MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

 

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1.Invoice issued by the opposite party to the complainant for Rs.5500/- dtd.12.04.10.

A2.Photocopy of Warranty card issued to the complainant dtd. 12/04/2010

A3.Diagnosis details issued by the Redington India Ltd to the complainant

A4.Warranty card of e touch mobile Pvt Ltd issued by the opposite party to the

       complainant.

 

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

Nil

 

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1.Manoharan Menoki( father of the complainant)

 

Witness examined for the opposite party:

 None

                                                                                                                        Sd/-President

 

//True copy//

 

(Forwarded/By Order)

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT