Smt.Sheela Jacob (Member):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
- The complainant’s case is that he had purchased Index aqua Lions 3 model IMEI No. 911584950338542 mobile phone from the 1st opposite party on 08/09/2017 by paying Rs.7000/-. The 1st opposite party had issued the cash bill and offering 6 months replacement warranty and one year warranty to the complainant on 08/09/2017 itself. While the complainant was using the phone. The phone became defective after one month of its purchase. The defects are display damage, overheating, software complaint etc. The matter was intimated to the 1st opposite party. The opposite party promised that he will replace the phone within a week. So it was given to the 1st opposite party for replacement. There after the complainant contacted the 1st opposite party several times. After one month the 1st opposite party returned the phone. But it’s IMEI No. 91158495157746 and the colour and price also different. This matter was also intimated to the 1st opposite party but he did not redress it. The complaint of the phone was occurred during the warranty period. In this circumstance, the complainant requested the 1st opposite party for the replacement of the mobile phone in the same brand, colour and price. But he had not taken any positive steps to redress the grievance of the complainant.
- The refusal on the part of the 1st opposite party to replace the mobile phone during the warranty period is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite party to refund the price of the mobile phone Rs.7000/- along with compensation of Rs.25, 000/- and cost of this proceedings.
- This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for appearance. The opposite parties are not appeared hence this Forum declared them as ex parte on 21/02/2018.
- On the basis of the pleadings of the complainant 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 and Ext.A1 and MO1. Ext.A1 is the original cash bill dated 08/09/2017 and MO1 is the mobile phone. After the closure of evidence the complainant was heard.
- The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that the mobile phone which he purchased from the 1st opposite party became defective within the warranty period. The complainant properly intimated this fact to the 1st opposite party and entrusted the phone to the 1st opposite party for necessary repairing. The opposite parties did not rectify the defects of the mobile phone or replaced it. 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 opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.
- In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with one document and mobile phone. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the cash bill dated 08/09/2017 is produced and marked as Ext.A1 and mobile is marked on MOI. Ext.A1 is the original cash bill dated 08/09/2017 for Rs. 7000/- issued by the 1st opposite party in respect of the sale of the mobile phone and MOI is the mobile in respect of this case.
- On the basis of the allegation of the complainant, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the complainant purchased a mobile phone from the 1st opposite party for Rs. 7,000/- on 08/09/2017 with awarranty of one year and 6 months replacement warranty. It becomes defective after one month of its purchase. The complainant’s allegation is that the said phone has become defective during its warranty period and it was not rectified by the opposite party. After one month the 1st opposite party returned the phone but its IMEI NO. 91158495157746, the colour and price are different. It shows that the opposite parties have returned another phone. Since the opposite parties are ex parte we find no reason to disbelieve the allegations of the complainant against the 1st opposite party. Therefore the complainant’s case stands proved as unchallenged. The non redressal of the complainant’s grievance as well as the change of the phone is a clear deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice on the part of the 1st opposite party there for 1st opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Hence we find that this complaint is allowable against the opposite party.
- In the result, this complaint is allowed, there by the 1st opposite party is directed to replace the defective mobile phone (MO1) with a new phone of the same brand along with compensation of Rs.3, 000/- and cost of Rs.1500/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize Rs. 7,000/- along with compensation and 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 28st day of
February, 2018.
(Sd/-)
SheelaJacob
(Member)
Sree. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair, (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Sudarshanan,
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Original cash bill dated 08/09/2017.
MO1 : Mobile.
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) Sudarshnan,
Sopanam, Thottakkonam,Mudiyoorkonam. P.O,Pandalam.
(2) The Proprietor,
Mobile Tech, Prakash Building, Opp. Municipality Bypass Road,
Pandalam.(Ex- party on 21.02.2018)
(3) Index Technologies (India) Ltd.,
8-26, Sector 83,Gautham Buddha Nagar,Noida.
(Ex- party on 21.02.2018)
(4)The Stock File.
