KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FIRST APPEAL 365/2009 JUDGMENT DATEED: 25.9.2009 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in CC.No. 39 /08 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER M/s Accel Frontline Services Ltd., :APPELLANT Thycaud.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. Vs. 1. Mr.Varghese C.Philipkutty, : RESPONDENTS C/o Sruthy Textiles, M.C.Road, Thiruvalla. 2. M/S Mobily, Opposite Indian Oil Pump, Pattom Trivandrum. JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in the file No.CC. 39/08 dated 30.4.09. The appellant/Revision petitioner is the 1st opposite party in the above said CC who prefers this appeal from the above impugned order. 2. The brief of the case is that the complainant who purchased Sony Ericsson Mobile phone from the 1st opposite party on 30.1.07 for Rs.7,550/-. This cell phone was purchased for a use of his daughter, while using this phone in AC room the phone automatically switched off. This was informed by the complainant to the 1st opposite party, the dealer. The 1st opposite party directed to approach 2nd opposite party, the authorized service center to examine the defect. The daughter of the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party with the phone. The service center examined the phone and suggested that the mother board has to be replaced and for that Rs.4,800/- is required or otherwise the software has to be upgraded. Accordingly the daughter of the complainant paid Rs.149/- and upgraded the software. But the defect was not cured. Again the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party then they cleared the phone and returned to the complainant. But the same defect continued. The complainant had no other way and so she purchased another phone for her use. The complainant sent notice to the opposite parties that the defect occurred during the warranty period, hence the opposite parties are liable to replace the phone or return thye price of the phone. The opposite parties received charges from the complainant for repairing the phone, but the defects were not rectified. Though the opposite parties accepted the notice they did not respond. Hence the complainant filed the complaint for the redressal of his grievances. 3. The 1st opposite party accepted notice from this forum, but never turned upto contest the case. The 2nd opposite party filed version and contested the case . In the version the 2nd opposite party stated that the complainant has admitted that the mobile phone is functioning normally under room temperature and in an A/C room it got automatically switched off. They stated that when the complainant brought the mobile phone for repair there was corrosion on the PCB which is the mother board and costs almost 80% of the cost of mobile. Corrosion means liquid damage, in other words the mobile has come in contact with moisture which renders the board irreparable. Under these circumstances a repair declaration form is obtained from the customer since this condition is not warranted to under the manufacturers policy to safe guard the rights of the service provider. They further stated that the complainant’s daughter signed the same and a service charge was taken or cleaning the PCB as the complaint was not covered under warranty. So non-warranty repairs are charged as per manufacturer’s policy. They stated that the complainant was well aware of all the above stated facts and they were not willing ot change the mother board. So a service of the PCB was done and the mobile return to the complainant in working condition. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. When the complainant Varghese C.Philipkutty is examined as PW1 and marked the documents P1 to P4. On the side of opposite party DW1 is examined (Vellore Sujatha) and marked D1 to D6. the Commission report is marked C! as a court exhibit. 1st opposite party was remained ex parte. The Forum below examined of the evidence available in this case and rightly answered that the opposite parties are liable to cure defect within the warranty period on free of cost. The Forum below find that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties and directed them to refund Rs.6450/- after deducting Rs.1000/- from the purchase price of Rs.7450/- as depreciation of the mobile phone and Rs.149/- as the service charge collected from the complainant during the warranty period and also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.2500/- as cost to the complainant. The complainant also directed to return the cell phone to the opposite parties after receiving the above amounts. Time for compliance of the order is one month. Thereafter 12% annual interest shall also be added to the above such amounts. 4. The appellant prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. The petition for condone the delay is allowed and admitted the appeal. The LCR is received. On this day this appeal come before this Commission for final hearing the appellant is represented through the authorized agent. 1st respondent is appeared in person. Heard both parties and perused the entire evidence available in this case bundle. The appellant is not having any case that the system was submerged in the water or it was explosed in the open rain it is not having any case that the complainant was making after to repair the cell phone for any other agency. The appellant submitted that the cell phone system is not activating in the A/C rooms due to the change of the moister condition of the temperature of the A/C room. This commission put a question to the appellant that whether she is technically qualified to putforward such a technical opinion. She submitted that she is experienced in administrative side not having any qualification and experience in the technical side. Without supporting any documents or any expert opinion it is very difficult to accept the submission of the appellant that cell phone is deactivating or non functioning in the A/C rooms. It is a strange defense taken by the appellant. Everybody is using the mobile phone in A/C rooms. A/S rooms are very common now a days in everywhere including inside vehicles, trains, bedrooms etc. We are not seeing any trust worth in this new innovation. This Commission is seeing that the Forum below answered all the points arranged in this dispute rightly and accordance of the provisions of law and evidence. The order passed by the Forum below is legally sustainable. There is no reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below. In the result this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective costs. SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER Ps
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
