Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):
The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows. The complainant he who purchased a Lenovo Mobile K6 Note 3+32 from the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs.13,700/- on 10/02/2017. It is contented that the said phone has become defective which was entrusted to the 2nd opposite party for necessary repairing. On the same day i.e., 29/10/2017 the 3rd opposite party returned the phone stating ‘liquid logged water mark is Red warranty void’ to the complainant. According to the complainant the defect happened to the phone during the time of warranty so that the opposite parties are liable to correct the mistake of the phone. According to the complainant the act of the opposite parties are clear deficiency in service and they are liable to the complainant. Hence, the complainant for the refund of the price of the mobile phone Rs.13,700/- compensation, cost etc. etc.
3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for appearance. Except 2nd opposite party, 1st and 3rd opposite party are declared ex parte in this case. The 2nd opposite party appeared and filed a version as follows. According to the 2nd opposite party it is admitted that the complaint he who entrusted the said phone for necessary repairment to him during the time of warranty. It is also contended that the 2nd opposite party again entrusted the said phone to the authorized service center the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party reported that the defect occurred to the phone due to the entry of water. It is also contented that there is no warranty for the phone since the defect happened due to the water logging. According to him he has not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.
4. On the basis of the complaint, version of 2nd opposite party and records before as we framed the following issues for consideration.
(1). whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service as alleged?
(2). Regarding the relief and costs?
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit along with 3 documents and he has examined as PW1. Through PW1 Ext.A1 to A3 were also marked. Ext.A1 is the invoice dated 10/02/2017. Ext.A2 is the warranty card dated 10/02/2017. Ext.A3 is the service order dated 04/11/2017. The original mobile phone also produced before this Forum and it was marked as MO1. After the closure of evidence we heard the complainant.
6. Point No. 1&2:- For the sake of convenience we would like to consider Point No.1 &2 together. When we go through the evidence of this case we can see that the proof affidavit of PW1 is more or less as per the tune of his complaint. PW1 deposed that he paid an amount of Rs.13,700/- to the 1st opposite party on 10/02/2017 and purchased the said Lenovo mobile phone as per Ext.A1 dated 10/02/2017 and entrusted the same to 2nd opposite party for necessary repairment. In order to establish the warranty of the mobile phone PW1 produced and marked Ext.A2. According to PW1 the warranty is for one year. If so any defect occurred within the warranty period? Ext.A3 is Lenovo service center dated 04/11/2017 which shows that the mobile phone was returned to PW1 ‘as un repair’. It is also noted that the problem of the phone was ‘Liquid logged water mark is red – warranty void’. Though the 2nd opposite party filed a version he did not turn up to conduct the case so the evidence adduced by the complainant is unchallengeable as far as the 2nd opposite party is concerned and also unchallengeable against the 1st & 3rd opposite party since they are declared ex parte. In the light of the above evidence we have to find that whether the opposite party has committed any deficiency in service as contented by the complainant. It is proved that though PW1 entrusted the phone for necessary repairing the 3rd opposite party retuned the phone without doing any repairing and this fact can be ascertained from Ext.A3. Though the 3rd opposite party stated that Liquid logged water mark was found in the phone the opposite parties did not take any necessary steps to prove this fact. The opposite parties are evaded from the trial of this case there by we have to rely the evidence adduced by the complainant in this case. As discussed above though the evidence before us is unchallenged one as such we found that evidence before us is credible. It is crystal clear to see that PW1 purchased the phone from the 1st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.13,700/- and the said phone is still defective. The said phone was produced by the PW1 before this Forum and it is marked as MO1. If so we can see that it is the duty of the opposite parties to rule out the defect of the phone with in a reasonable time. It is also to say that the 3rd opposite party returned the phone to the complainant without doing any maintenance on it or demanded any amount from the complainant. These are clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is also find that the 1st to 3rd opposite party are jointly and severely liable to the complainant. On the basis of the evidence and circumstance of this case we would like to allow the complaint. Hence point No. 1&2 found in favour of the complainant.
7. In the result we pass the following orders.
1. The opposite parties are hereby directed to repaire the mobile phone within one month of receipt of this order, if fails the 1st to 3rd opposite party are liable to refund the price of the mobile
phone Rs.13,700/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand and Seven Hundred Only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of filing of this case i.e., 27/01/2018. The opposite parties
are allowed to receive the MO1 (mobile phone) from CDRF if they complied the relief No.1within one month of receipt of this order.
2. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) along with a cost to Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five hundred Only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2018.
(Sd/-)
P. Satheesh Chandran Nair
(President)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member): (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Shabu.E.P
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Invoice dated 10/02/2017.
A2 : Warranty card dated 10/02/2017.
A3 : Service order dated 04/11/2017.
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. Shabu.E.P,
Edapullil Kalayil, Mekozhoor.P.O., Pathanamthitta.
2. Lenovo India Private Limited,
Corporate Office, Doddanekundi, Bengaluru,
Karnataka – 560037. (Set Ex parte on 12/03/2018)
3. Nokia Rolex Mobile House,
Pathanamthitta, Pathanamthitta.P.O. – 689645.
4. Mobile Hut,
Service Centre, M.C.Road, Pandalam – 689501.
(Set Ex parte on 12/03/2018)
5. The Stock file.
