IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 31st day of May, 2016
Filed on 04.12.2015
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.350/2015
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Renjith. V.S, 1. B2X,
Veliyil House, 40/8092, First Floor,
Pathirappally.P.O, DD Junction Building,
Poonkavu Jn, M.G.Road,
Alappuzha – 688521, Near Shenoy’s,
Ph: 9946424143. Opp: Alappuzha Arcade,
Cochin, Ernakulam – 682035,
Ph: 0484 – 4067500, 7559064500.
2. Sonic System,
Pulimoottil Trade Centre,
Ammankoovil Street,
Mullackal, Alappuzha – 688011,
Ph: 9961276777.
3. Nano Mobiles,
Shop No. A7, Basement Floor,
Penta Menaka, Ernakulam,
Ph: 0484 – 4044759
4. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd,
Ferns Icon, Level – 2,
Doddenakund Village,
Marathhalli outer Ring Road,
Marathhalli Post, Kr Puram Hobli,
Bangalore – 560037.
5. Nokia Care,
Ansons Shopping complex,
East Iron Bridge, CCSB Road,
Alleppey – 688001,
Ph: 9846007174.
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The facts of the complaint in short are as follows:-
The complainant purchased a mobile phone from the 3rd opposite party manufactured by the 4th opposite party on 6.1.2015. It is contended that immediately after the date of purchase the product became defunct and entrusted to the 2nd opposite party for getting it repaired. The 2nd opposite party intimated the complainant that the problem is with regard to the software and repaired the same. The product became again defective and this time the problem is with regard to the power button and the opposite party replaced the board on 12.5.2015. But the defect persisted. Thereafter the complainant has intimated the first opposite party regarding the complaint and as per their intimation the phone was entrusted to the first opposite party service centre on 18.9.2015 and they assured to replace the same. Thereafter the complainant contacted the first opposite party many times and on 20.11.2015 when the complainant approached the first opposite party they intimated the complainant that the phone is waterlogged and returned the phone without repairing or replacing. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint seeking refund of the price along with compensation and costs.
2. Notices were served to the opposite parties 2 to 5. Notice against the first opposite aprty returned as left. The 4th opposite party represented through his counsel, but not filed version. Hence opposite parties 2 to 5 were set ex-parte.
3. The complainant produced 5 documents marked as Exts.A1 to A5.
4. Considering the allegations of the complainant the Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs?
5. Issues 1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Lenovo phone for an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 6.1.2015. The phone became defective on several occasions and finally on 18.9.2015 the complainant entrusted the phone to the first opposite party on 18.9.2015 as per the intimation given by the manufacturer. The hand set was received by the first opposite party on 18.9.2015 and the opposite party assured to replace the same, but later on 20.11.2015 the first opposite party intimated the complainant that the product is waterlogged and denied warranty. According to the complainant there was no such defect when he entrusted the phone on 18.9.2015.
The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
5. Complainant produced 5 documents which were marked as Exts.A1 to A5. Ext.A1 shows that the complainant purchased the phone on 6.1.2015 for an amount of Rs.10,000/-. Exts.A2 to A5 are the job sheets. It shows that the phone became defective on many occasions. Ext.A5 is the copy of e-mail. Ext.A4 is the copy of Lenovo service record shows the complainant entrusted the mobile phone to the first opposite party who is the authorized service centre of the 4th opposite party on 18.9.2015. According to the complainant on 20.11.2015 the opposite party returned the phone without curing the defect stating that the product is waterlogged and there was no such damage when he entrusted the mobile phone. From the documents, it is clear that the defect arose within the warranty period. The facts and circumstances of the case together with the documents made it is clear that the complainant’s case is true and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not even mind to come forward and conduct the case. They did not even file version. There is no need to disbelieve the complainant. Even though, the phone is with the first opposite party for a period of more than 2 months. The opposite parties failed to rectify the defect or to replace the phone. Therefore the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Therefore the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund the price of the mobile phone Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant and the complainant is directed to return the defective phone to the opposite parties simultaneously. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of Rs.10,000/- shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till realization to the complainant.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of May, 2016.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D. (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Copy of the bill for Rs.10,000/- dated 6.1.2015
Ext.A2 – A4 - Copy of the job sheets
Ext.A5 - Copy of the e-mail
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
