IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
C C No. 125/2016
Tuesday, the 29th day of November, 2016
Petitioner : C.R. Raveendran,
Manameparambil,
Cheeranchira P.O.
Changanacherry.
(Adv. Avaneesh V.N.)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Lenova India Pvt. Ltd.
Rep. by M.D. Fems Icon,
Level 2, Doddenakundi Village,
Maralhanalli Outer Ring Road,
K.R. Puram, Hobli, Bangalore – 560037
2) Proprietor,
New Mobile Market,
PMJ Complex,
Changanacherry – 686 101.
(Adv. P.J. Jyothy)
3) Proprietor,
Voice Plus Kottayam,
Malikayil Building,
Opp. Mount Carmel L.P. School,
Kottayam – 686 004.
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 18/04/2016 is as follows,
The complainant on 11/11/2015 purchased a Lenovo mobile phone manufactured by the 1st opposite party, from the 2nd opposite party for Rs.8,800/-. According to the complainant, in the warranty another dealers name was affixed, on enquiry about it the 2nd opposite party informed that they brought the said mobile phone for sale from that dealer whose name is affixed on the card. And the 2nd opposite party is also assured that the phone is having one year warranty. After 3 days of its purchase, it become defective and he approached the 2nd opposite party. After inspecting the phone, 2nd opposite party intimated that the defect is in the charger and he issued another charger. But within one month, the phone become defective and he was directed to the 3rd opposite party, the authorized service centre, by the 2nd opposite party. So the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party and the service person inspected the phone and intimated that they will not accept the phone for repairing because it is not an original one. The complainant intimated about the warranty card. But the opposite party has not cared to accept the phone under warranty. According to the complainant, the mobile phone is defective and is not useable. The defect of the phone is due to manufacturing defect. And the act of opposite parties in delivering a defective phone and in not repair the same amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.
1st opposite party appeared and filed vakalath. But 1st opposite party failed to file version in time as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act.
2nd opposite party appeared and filed vakalth. But 2nd opposite party has not filed version.
Even after accepting the notice, 3rd opposite party has not cared to appear or file version.
Points for Considerations are
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Relief and cots?
Evidence in this case consists of the Proof affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1 and A2 documents.
Point No.1
The case of the complainant is that a newly purchased mobile phone, manufactured by the 1st opposite party, purchased from the 2nd opposite party become defective within a short period of its purchase and the 3rd opposite party, the authorised service centre of the 1st opposite party has not cared to repair within warranty period. And now the mobile phone is not usable. Complainant produced the bill issued by the 2nd opposite prty and the same is marked as Ext.A1. From Ext.A1, it can be understood that the date of purchase is on 11/11/2015 and the price of the disputed phone is Rs.8,800/-. In the absence of contra evidence we are constrained to rely on the proof affidavit and Ext.A1 and A2 documents. In our view, a newly purchased phone shows serious defects within short period, is due to manufacturing defect. And the act of opposite parties, delivering a mobile phone having manufacturing defects, to the complainant and in not repair the same amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Due to the said act of opposite parties, complainant had suffered much mental pain and loss. So he is to be compensated. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the finding in Point No.1, complaint is allowed.
In the result
- Opposite parties are directed to replace the defective mobile phone with a brand new having same model and same feature to the complainant OR opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.8,800/-, the price of the product to the complainant. On such an event, opposite party can take back the defective phone from the custody of the complainant.
- Opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation and Rs.2,500/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
The Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order. If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 15% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Fora on this the 29th day of November, 2016.
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1 : Bill No.2971 dtd.11/11/15 from 22nd opposite party’
Ext.A2 : Copy of phone details of Lenovo mobile service.
Documents of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent (I/C)
