Smt. Sheela Jacob

                   The complainant has filed this complainant against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   The complainant’s case in that he had purchased VIVO CO. mobile phone from the opposite party on 14/11/2017 by paying Rs.7,500/-.  The opposite party has issued the cash bill, offering 30 days replacement warranty & one year warranty to the complainant on 14/11/2017 itself.  But the phone was not in working condition.  The matter was intimated to the opposite party.  On the 16/11/2017 the complainant went to the opposite party’s shop with this mobile phone and demanded him to replace the mobile phone.  According to the instruction of the opposite party the complainant entrusted the mobile phone

along with its cash bill.  But so far the opposite party has not replaced the mobile phone or not paid back the bill amount or bill.  The complaints of the phone were occurred during the warranty period.  According to the complainant, the defect of the mobile phone is due to the low manufacturing quality hence the opposite party is liable to replace the mobile phone.  The above said act of the opposite party in a clear deficiency in service which caused mental agony and financial loss as such the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same.  Hence this complainant for an order directing the opposite party either to replace the defective mobile phone with a new one of the same brand or to refund the price of the mobile phone Rs.7,500/- with 12% interest along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of this proceedings.  This forum entertained the complainant and issued notice to the opposite party for appearance.  The opposite party is not appeared hence this Forum declared him as ex parte on 07/02/2018.

                    On the basis of the pleadings of the opposite party, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not.

                    The evidence of this complaint consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant.  After closure of the evidence complainant was heard.

                   The Point:   The complainant’s allegation is that the mobile phone purchased from the opposite party became defective with in the warranty period.  The complaints were properly intimated to the opposite party.  And he entrusted the mobile phone with its cash bill.  But so far the opposite party has not rectified the defects of the mobile phone or replaced the mobile phone with its bill.  The above said act of the opposite party i.e., selling of a defective phone,

non redressal of the complainant’s grievance are clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the opposite party is liable to the complaint for the same.  

                   In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination.  On the basis of the proof affidavit the complainant was examined as PW1.  The complainant as PW1 deposed that he could not produce the mobile phone and bill because the opposite party was not returned the mobile phone and its cash bill.

                   The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a mobile phone for Rs. 7,500/- on 14/11/2017 from the opposite party with one year warranty and 30 days replacement warranty.  The allegation of the complainant is that the complainants of the mobile phone occurred during the warranty period which is not rectified by the opposite party.  The phone was not charging and the said phone was not possible to switch on and it became useless and the same was returned to the opposite party on 16/11/2017 i.e., the second day of its purchase.  Both the cash bill and mobile phone were with opposite party.  But he did not replace the mobile phone or return its bill and bill amount.  Since the opposite party is ex parte we find no reason to disbelieve the allegation of the complainant against the opposite party.  Therefore the complainant’s case stands proved an unchallenged.  The non redressal of the complainant’s grievances is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice other part of the opposite party and he is liable to the complainant for the same.  Hence we find that this complaint is allowable against the opposite party point found accordingly.

In the result this complainant is allowed, there by the opposite party is directed to replace the defective mobile phone with a new phone of the same brand along with compensation of Rs.3, 000 and cost of Rs. 2,000 to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize Rs.7, 500/- along with compensation cost ordered herein above with 10% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.  

                  Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of February, 2018.

                                                                                       (Sd/-)

                                                             Smt. Sheela Jacob

P. Satheesh Chandran Nair, (President)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Sathyavan.K

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: Nil.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil

                                                                                               (By Order)

 Copy to:-

               (1) K.Sathyavan,

Uzhathil Sathyamahal, Vallikkodu.P.O, Pathanamthitta.     

               (2) The Proprietor,

     K.R.Mobiles Sales & services, Near Private Bus Stand,

 Prakash Hotel Building, Pandalam – Mavelikkara Road,

  Pandalam - 689501.

               (3) The Stock File