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 who purchased a P701 Tab of micromax on 11/09/2016 by paying Rs.6,700/- to the 3^rd opposite party.  It is contented that the said phone was having a warranty of one year and the 3^rd opposite party has given assurance of all warranty protection to the complainant.  According to the complainant while he was using the said tab it shows some mistake so that he approached the authorized service center of the 1^st opposite party for rectifying the mistake.  It is contented that the 2^nd opposite party returned the said tab without rectifying the mistake.   The complainant contented that the act of the opposite party is clear deficiency in service and they are liable to the complainant.  Hence, the case for the refund of the price of the tab, compensation, cost etc. etc.

          3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties for appearance.  Except 3^rd opposite party, 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties are appeared before the Forum and filed their versions.  The 3^rd opposite party set ex parte by this Forum on 14/02/2018.  The version of the 1^st opposite party is as follows.  According to the opposite party the case is not maintainable against him.  It is contented that he is not familiar with the complainant and he did not come to his office.  It is admitted that he is the service center of the 1^st opposite party.  It is contented that the complainant who purchased the said tab from the 3^rd opposite party and also denied the contention of the complainant to the effect that he approached him.  Hence, the 1^st opposite party is an unnecessary party to the proceedings of the case.  Therefore 1st opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.  It is also stated that the correct address of the 1^st opposite party is service manager and not as sales manager as contented by the complainant.  It is seen that as per in IA.40/2018 the address of the 1^st opposite party was already amended as Sales Manager Micromax Service Center, SNDP Trust Building, Pathanamthitta.  In the light of the above statement of 1^st opposite party the address portion is suo-moto changed as sales manager/service manager. 

4. The 2^nd opposite party is also filed an objection/versions as follows.  According to him the complainant did not entrust the said tab to his service center as contented by him.  It is also contended that the service center Kottayam and the micromax company are the necessary parties of this case.  Therefore the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost. 

                    5. On the basis of the complaint, version of 1^st and 2^nd opposite party and records before us, we framed the following issues for consideration.

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding relief and costs?

6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and marked Ext.A1 and A2 in his favour.  Ext.A1 is the Tax Invoice dated 11/09/2016.  Ext.A2 is the job sheet dated 17/08/2017.  The complainant produced and marked his tab (Micromax tab - P701) as MO1 in this case.  Though the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are filed their version they did not appear before this
Forum to cross examine the complainant PW1.  After the closure of evidence we heard the complainant. 

7. Point No.1:  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party contented that the case is not maintainable before this Forum.  When we look into the evidence adduced by the complainant and verifying the Exhibits before as  it is so clear to see that the complainant PW1 who purchased the mobile phone-P701 tab from the 3^rd opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.6,700/-.  Therefore we can find that the complainant is a consumer of the 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties and they are service providers of the complainant.  Hence, Point No.1 found in favour of the complainant.

8. Point No.2&3: For the sake of convenience we would like to consider Point No.2 & 3 together.  The case of the complainant is that he purchased a tab of the 1^st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.6,700/- to the 3^rd opposite party.  In order to prove the purchase of the said tab he produced and marked Ext.A1 the tax invoice.  It is deposed that when the said tab had become defective he approached the authorized service center of the 1^st opposite party but the 2^nd opposite party failed to redress the defect of the said phone.  It is also deposed that while he using the tab, software and hardware, had become defective and the android of the said phone would not opened.  In order to substantiate the defect of the phone he produced and marked Ext.A2.  It is seen that on 17/08/2017 the said tab (phone) had entrusted for necessary repair to the 2^nd opposite party.  The phone was having a warranty against the manufacturer/1^st opposite party at the time if the said entrustment.  It is also seen that the problem reported as 424 CELLULAR ACCESS (GSM) NO SERVICE.  It is argued that the problem of the phone was the failure of showing the signal on phone.  When we refer the version filed by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party we can see that they totally denied all the contention raised by PW1 in this case.  It is to see that though they filed the two versions in their favour they have not taken any steps to substantiate their contention before this Forum.  The complainant come before the witness box and deposed his case with sufficient evidence.  The evidence adduced by PW1 before this Forum is unchallengeable as far as this case is concerned.  In the light of the evidence and records before us there is no need of disbelieving the deposition or evidence on records adduced by PW1.  Therefore we find that the complainant has succeeded to prove his case with conclusive evidence.  It is also find that the 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the phone and the 2^nd opposite party is the authorized service center of the 1^st opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party is the authorized dealer who sold the said tab to the complainant.  So 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to the complainant.  Hence, Point No.2 &3 found in favour of the complainant. 

9. In the result we pass the following orders.

1. The 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties are hereby directed to refund the price of the mobile phone Rs.6,700/- (Rupees Six Thousand Seven Hundred Only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of filing of this case i.e. 19/12/2017.    

2. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) and a cost of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order onwards. 

                          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of December, 2018.

                                                                                             (Sd/-)

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                           (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)  :  (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Abraham.K.Mathew

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Tax Invoice dated 11/09/2016. 

A2 :  job sheet dated 17/08/2017.

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. Abrham.K.Mathew,

     Sankaramangalathu (Ebanezer), Eraviperoor.P.O.,

     Thiruvalla-689 542.

                   2. The Sales Manager/Service Manager,

        M/s. G Mobiles & Electronics, Valiyaveettil Building, College Jn.,

        Pathanamthitta – 689 645.

         3. The Service Manager,

        Micromax, M/s.Jetronix, Door No.421, Chandra Square,

                      3^rd Floor, East of Pichu Iyyer Jn., Alappuzha, Kerala. 

                   4. The Manager,

                       Alif Mobile, Technotrade retail Service Pvt. Ltd.,

             Door No.40/2908 – Penta Menaka, Ground Floor,

             Shanmugham Road, Ernakulam – 682 031.

             (Set Ex parte on 14.02.2018)  

          5. The stock file.