O R D E R

By  Smt.Sheena.V.V.,  Member :

          The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a Samsung Galaxy S DUOS 2 Model No.GT-S 7582 UWANS  from the 1^st opposite party on 31/3/14, for an amount of Rs.10,250/-, which was manufactured b 2^nd opposite party.  Within few days from the date of purchase, the phone showed some defects and the complainant had approached the 1^st opposite party and explained the defects.  They suggested that the companies authorized service centre will repair the phone free of cost or else will replace with a new one as per the warranty conditions.  Believing the words of 1^st opposite party, the complainant had entrusted the phone with 3^rd opposite party on 13/5/14.  At the time of entrusting with the 3^rd opposite party, they did not mention about any charges.  After the repair have been done, they charged the complainant with Rs.4,330/-.  Since the complainant was in need of the phone, he had to pay the amount and collect phone on 20/5/14.  The act of the opposite parties amounts to clear violation of warranty conditions and amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  So, the complainant sent a lawyer notice to all the  opposite parties.  But no remedy so far.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint to get the remitted amount of repairing charge with cost and compensation.

          2. On receiving the notice of the complaint, the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties appeared before the Forum through counsel and filed detailed version.  In the version of 1^st opposite party, they admitted the purchase and defect of the mobile.  As per the terms and conditions of warranty, the defect was cured through the authorized service centre at free of cost.  So, the 1^st opposite party is directed the complainant to approach  3^rd opposite party, the  authorized service centre.  So, there is no deficiency in service committed by  1^st opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party also filed counter stating that they never cued the defects of the alleged mobile.  According to 3^rd opposite party, the complainant was approached them for repairing the mobile, and he taken back the mobile when they stated that the warranty will not be given to the mobile.  If any bill is produced by the  complainant, that may be a requisition bill.  So, there is no deficiency in service committed by 3^rd opposite party.  Hence both opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of  complaint.

          3. 2^nd opposite party is properly served the notice, and they were continuously absent.  So set exparte.

          4. The points to considered that :

1) Whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service or not?

2) If so what reliefs and costs ?

          5. When the case is posted for evidence, the complainant filed proof affidavit and 7 documents produced, which are marked as Exts.P1 to P7.  Ext.P1 is the purchase bill, Ext.P2 is the warranty conditions, Ext.P3 is the service bill, Ext.P4 is the lawyer notice, Ext.P5 is the postal receipt, Ext.P6 is the postal acknowledgement card and Ext.P7 is the reply notice of 1^st opposite party.  There is no contra evidence adduced by opposite parties.

          6. We have gone through the affidavit and documents of complainant.  The complainant is filed this complaint to get the amount as per Ext.P3.  From the records of complainant, we could find that 1^st opposite party is the dealer of 2^nd opposite party company.  The complainant had purchased the product form 1^st opposite party dealer.  The case is regarding Ext.P3 document.  Ext.P3 document is issued by opposite parties in the name of complainant.  According to 3^rd opposite party, Ext.P3 is only a requisition bill and the complainant never entrusted the mobile with 3^rd opposite party.  But we have gone through Ext.P3 document, it written as “Tax Invoice – Cash/Credit”.  The 3rd opposite party is also put in seal as “Cash Received, with thanks” and amount written as Rs.4,330/-.  So, from the quotation  of cash received, we could calculate that the amount is aid by the complainant shown in Ext.P3.  So the argument of 3^rd opposite party is unbelievable.

          7. The another point we considered that, whether the defect was cured under the warranty period or not.  As per Ext.P1 document, the date of purchase shown as 31/3/14 and date of service bill (Ext.P3) is 20/5/14, i.e., within 2 months of purchase of mobile.  As per Ext.P2 document, they offered one year warranty.  So, the service was done within the warranty.

          8. Considering all these points, we could find that 3rd opposite party is liable to return the received amount as per Ext.P3 and proved the deficiency in service committed by 3^rd opposite party.

          9. In the result, the complaint is allowed and 3^rd opposite party is directed to return Rs.4,330/- (Rupees Four thousand three hundred and thirty only)  to the complainant and cost Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 28^th day  of   April     2017.