IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 27 th day of October, 2018.n
Filed on 27-04-2018
Present
- Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim,B.A,LLM (President)
2. Smt. Sheela Jacob, B.com,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.112/2018
between
Complainants:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Renjith Renjan 1. Tokyo Shop
Nambakkaveli, Penta Menaka Shopping Complex
Paravoor. P.O, Shanmugham Road
Alappuzha Marine Drive
Ernakulam
2. Hybrid Systems city Centre
General Hospital Junction
Ernakulam-688001
3. Huawei Tele communications
India (Pvt. Ltd)
-
HAL Old Airport Road
Kodihalli, Karnataka.
O R D E R
SMT.SHEELA JACOB (Member)
This is a case based a consumer complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act..
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
- The complainants purchased Honor 8 smart VEN-L22 model mobile phone from the 1st opposite party on 31/1/2018 by paying Rs. 8500/-. The 1st opposite party had issued cash bill and offering one year warranty to the complainant on 31/1/2018 itself. While the complainant was using the phone. The same became defective after one week of its purchase. The matter was intimated to the 2nd opposite party. He told that it was the fault of the charger. So he gave a new charger to the complainant. But the phone was not in working condition. Again the complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party. It was handed over to the 2nd opposite party for repair. After two weeks, 2nd opposite party returned the mobile set under the pretext that all defects were rectified properly. The complainant checked the mobile phone in the service centre. The defect of the mobile phone was not cured. Thereafter the complainant entrusted the set to the 2nd opposite party for repairing. But he was incapable to find out the defects. In the circumstances, the complainant requested the opposite party for replacement of the mobile phone. But they had not taken any positive steps to redress the grievances of the complainant so far. The complaints of the phone occurred during the warranty period. It was having manufacturing defect. Therefore, the above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence the complaint seeking an order directing the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile phone with a new phone of the same category or in the alternative direct them to return its price of Rs.8500/- along with compensation of Rs. 3000/- and cost of Rs. 2000/-.
- In response to the notice issued by this forum the opposite parties did not appear. Hence opposite parties were declared exparte.
- Complainant filed proof affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complainant and got marked Ext.A1 and A2 documents.
Heard the complainant and perused the records.
- The complainant’s allegation is that the mobile phone manufactured by the 3rd opposite party purchased by him from the 1st Opposite party became defective within the warranty period was not repaired by the 2nd opposite party though it was entrusted with him for repairs. According to the complainant the above said act of the opposite parties is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The unchallenged averments in the proof affidavit coupled with Ext.A1 and A2 documents would prove the case of the complainant. Ext.A1 is the cash bill number. 7019 dtd 31/1/2018 issued by the 1st opposite party in the name of the complainant for Rs.8,500/- in respect of the sale of mobile phone in question. Ext.A2 is the customer copy issued by the 2nd opposite party in the name of the complainant.
In view of Ext.A1 bill it is clear that the complainant has purchased the disputed mobile phone from the 1st opposite party by paying Rs. 8,500/- on 31/1/2018 with one year warranty. But the same the complainant allegation is that the said phone has became defective during its warranty period due to its manufacturing defect. However it is clear from the available materials that inspite of the request of the complaint the opposite parties have neither cured its defect nor replaced the same and now the mobile phone is in the custody of the 2nd opposite party. In the circumstance it is clear that there is deficiency in service on the side of opposite parties 1 to 3. It is also brought out in evidence that the mobile phone purchased by spending Rs. 8,500/- has become defective within one week of its purchase which has considered much mental agony to the complainant. Hence the opposite parties are liable to replace the defective mobile phone and to pay compensation to complainant as prayed for.
In the result, the complaint is allowed, thereby the 1st opposite party is directed to replace the defective mobile phone with a brand new phone of the same brand and specification or refund Rs. 8500/-( Rupees Eight thousand five hundred only) being the price of the mobile phone to the complainant within 30 days from today. Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs. 3000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) compensation and Rs. 2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as costs of the proceedings to complainant within 30 days from today, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize Rs. 13,500/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand five hundred only) along with interest at the rate of 12% interest per annum from today till realization from Opposite party 1 to 3 and from their assets.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 27th day of October, 2018.
Sd/- Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)
Sd/-Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim (President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Cash bill dtd 31/1 2018
Ext.A2 - Customer Copy
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
