O R D E R

By Sri. C.T. Sabu, President :

          The complaint is filed for getting replaced a Mobile phone purchased from 1^st opposite party alleging the said phone is defective. The complainant alleged that the 1^st opposite party sold a defective product manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party. The mobile hand set worth Rs.1,800/- and purchased on 02/10/13. After one week of the purchase the panel cover of the hand set was broken. Immediately it was given for repair to the 1^st opposite party and he assured that it will be repaired and the complainant will be informed. But evenafter one week he was not informed as told. And on enquiry the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the hand set is water soaked and Rs.1,000/- is needed for to repair the hand set and given back to the complainant. The defectives are caused due to inferior quality of the product and caused a notice for replacement of the same. But there was no reply hence this complaint is filed.

          2) On receiving the notice the 1^st opposite party filed version admitting the purchase of the hand set but denied the allegations in the complaint that the product is not working properly. He contended in his version that the product is manufactured by MIRC Electronics Ltd and they are the necessary parties who has to redress the complainant. Because the complainant alleged that the hand set was inferior in quality and there is manufacturing defect and adduced the address of the opposite party. He was not in a position to cure any manufacturing defect of the product and the manufacture only liable to redress the complainant. As per the request the Commission impleaded the 2^nd opposite party ‘Suo Moto’ and issued notice. On receiving the notice 2^nd opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed detailed version denying the allegations of the complainant. In their version they have denied that the hand set is of inferior quality. The only possibility is that the phone might have fallen down to any rough surface or may by fall in the water. The complaint of the hand set is due to water socking and the complainant is bound to use the hand set carefully. As he is not done so, the defect was caused. Though the 2^nd opposite party had no liability to repair the above hand set or replace it and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

          3) The points for consideration are :

                   a) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade

                        practice from the side of opposite parties ?

                   b) If so relief and cost ?

          4) When the case was posted for evidence complainant filed proof affidavit to the tune of complaint filed by him and produced 3 documents which are marked as Exts. P1 to P3. The mobile phone and cover of the product produced by him was marked as MO1 & MO2. Ext. P1 is the bill for Rs.1,800/- dtd. 02/10/13; Ext. P2 is the copy of lawyer notice dtd. 10/02/2014 and Ext. P3 is the A/D card. The 2^nd opposite party filed detailed proof affidavit to the tune of version filed by them also. No other oral evidence from any of the parties.

          5) Admittedly the product is sold by the 1^st opposite party manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party. On the physical verification it can be seen that the product is not working. Going through the documents we are convinced that immediately after the purchase the product was not working and the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party get it to be repaired. A product worth Rs.1,800/-, cost Rs.1,000/- more for the repair to be incurred by the complainant is not fair. Poor consumers are not supposed to bear with huge amount because of such inferior quality products. The 1^st opposite party is only a dealer cannot test the quality of the product manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party. The manufacturer is in a superior position than the dealer. And we are inclined to allow this complaint.

          In the result, we allowed the complaint and the 2^nd opposite party is directed to replace the mobile to the same value of the same company with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant  within one month of receipt of copy of this order. If failed the complainant is entitled to get Rs.6,800/- (Rupees Six thousand eight hundred only) from the 2^nd opposite party with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of purchase of the mobile hand set.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 15^th day of February 2021.  

   Sd/-                                        Sd/-                                                        Sd/-

Sreeja S.                          Dr.K.Radhakrishnan Nair                  C. T. Sabu

Member                           Member                                             President

                                                    Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits :

Ext. P1 bill for Rs.1,800/- dtd. 02/10/13

Ext. P2 copy of lawyer notice dtd. 10/02/2014

Ext. P3 A/D card.

MO 1 Mobile Phone

MO 2 Mobile Phone Cover

                                                                                                     Id/-                                                                                                                                                                          President