IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday, the 31st day of October, 2011
Filed on 01.07.2011
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
CC/No. 226/2011
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Dr. T.P. Rasheed 1. United Telelinks (Bangalore) Ltd.
Thamarasseril L – 13, Diamond District
Mangalam P.O. Airport Road, Kodihalli
Alappuzha – 690 515 Bangalore – 560 008, Karnataka
(By Adv. K. Krishnan) Represented through its Manager
2. United Telelinks Blr Ltd. Centre Address No.32/2376 C P.J.Anthony Road, Palarivattom Ernakulam – 682 025, Kerala
Represented through its Manager
3. Royal Traders, Kannukalipalam Thottappally P.O., Alappuzha – 688 563, Kerala, Represented through its Managing Partner
Biju.M.
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Dr.T.P.Rasheed has filed this complaint before the Forum on 1.7.2011 alleging deficiency in service on the side of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. The allegations are briefly stated as follows:- He had purchased “Karbonn” Mobile Phone of the Model KC 441, having IMEI : 352104030142834 with ESN : 02160E85, for a sum of Rs.5200/- on 15.10.2010 from the 3rd opposite party. Thereafter all on a sudden, the battery of the said set started to function slowly and battery is not energizing, even though the battery was charged for hours. There is drop of charge from the battery without usage, and it is further noticed that set is not capable for storing power. He had contacted the 3rd opposite party with the set and the warranty card, on 14.2.2011and intimated the details of the defects of the set and further demanded to replace the battery with a new one. 3rd opposite party directed him to contact the Sales Manager of the 2nd opposite party. He contacted the Sales Manager of the 2nd opposite party. But the Sales Manager of the 2nd opposite party had not given any steps to rectify the defects of the set. He had not obtained any positive relief, either to replace the defective set, or replacement of battery, or return of the price of the set. Since there was no positive steps on the side of the opposite parties 2 and 3, he sent advocate notice to the second opposite party on 1.4.2011. But they have not accepted the notice. Hence this complaint seeking proper relief.
2. Notice was issued to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. They have accepted the notice. But not entered appearance before the Forum. Considering their absence, opposite parties 2 and 3 were declared as exparte. (The first opposite party is deleted from the party array, by the complainant) and proceeded the matter.
3. Considering the contentions of the complaint, this Forum has raised the following issues for a fair adjudication:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties 2 and 3?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
3) Compensation and costs.
4. Issues 1 to 3:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of his case and produced documents in evidence – Exts.A1 to A3 marked. Ext.A1 is the Estimate document dt. 15.10.2010 issued to the complainant at the time of purchasing the set. It shows that an amount of Rs.5200/- was the price of the said set. Ext.A2 is the warranty card issued by the 3rd opposite party at the time of sale of the set. It shows that the warranty was for one year for the mobile hand set, from the date of purchase. Ext.A3 is the advocate notice dt. 1.5.2011 issued by the complainant to the said opposite parties.
5. We have perused the details of this case and verified the documents produced by the complainant in evidence and heard the matter. It can be seen that the complainant had purchased the above set for a sum of Rs.5200/- from the 3rd opposite party. At the time of the said sale, the 3rd opposite party had issued warranty card to the complainant along with the set. It shows that the warranty for the said set have one year duration, for rectify the defects from the date of purchase. It is alleged that the set became defective all on a sudden, and not working. The complainant contacted the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties for relief. But they have not taken any sincere effort either to rectify the defects with new battery or return the price of the set. Opposite parties had not turned up by the advocate notice. The entire action of the opposite parties 2 and 3 are highly unfair and it shows their unfair trade practice (first opposite party deleted from the party array). The whole action taken by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties shows that there are grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence, unfair trade practice and cheating on their side by way of purposeful denial either to give new battery or repay the price of the set, since the set has manufacturing defects. The opposite parties 2nd and 3rd are fully bound to give a new set or return the price of the set, since the defects occurred within a short time, from the date of purchase. The complainant is entitled to get a proper relief from the said opposite parties, since the complainant was a bonafide purchaser of the set. The action taken by the opposite parties are highly illegal, unauthorized and arbitrary and there is no justification on the side of the said opposite parties, regarding this transaction. For this, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation and cost to the complainant, and that the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for in the complaint.
6. On verification of the entire facts and circumstances of this case, it is to be noticed that even though 2nd and 3rd opposite parties had accepted the notices of this Forum, they have not cared to appear before this Forum, for stating the matter involved in this issue and for an amicable settlement. It shows their irresponsible nature and unfair trade practice of their business. So, we are of the view that the allegations raised by the complainant is to be treated as genuine and the documents given by the complainant – Exts.A1 to A3 are to be accepted for a fair adjudication. Hence the complaint is to be allowed as prayed for. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, we hereby direct the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties to return the price of the set, ie. Rs.5200/- (Rupees five thousand and two hundred only) to the complainant after collecting the defective set from him, and further pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for his mental agony, pain, sufferings, physical strain, inconvenience and loss due to the culpable negligence, grossest deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and cheating of the opposite parties by way of purposeful denial to rectify the defects of the set, refusal to replace of battery and refusal to issue a new set in time, since the set has manufacturing defects. Considering the facts and circumstances of this matter, we are of the further view that the opposite parties 2 and 3 are liable to pay the punitive cost to the complainant. So we further direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as punitive cost to the complainant and further pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as costs of this proceedings. We further ordered that in case any violation of this order, opposite parties shall pay 18% interest to the complainant from the date of filing of this complaint, till the date of repayment of the entire amount mentioned above, and further ordered that the complainant is free to proceed against the assets of the opposite parties for the realization of the said amounts. We further direct the opposite parties to comply with this order within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Complaint allowed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of October, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Estimate dated 15.10.2010
Ext.A2 - Warranty card
Ext.A3 - Advocate notice dtd. 1.5.2011
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
