D.O.F. 19.08.2013
D.O.O. 22.12.2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. Roy Paul : President
Smt. Sona Jayaraman K. : Member
Sri. Babu Sebastian : Member
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2014.
C.C.No.237/2013
Mohanan C,
Kadangot Valappil House
Othayammadam : Complainant
P.O. Cherukunnu
Kannur – 670301
(Rep. by Adv. K. Gopakumar)
1. Proprietor
M/s. Computer Club
Computer-Mobile Phone Sales & Service
Nr. Old Bus stand
Royal City, Payyannur
Kannur – 670 307
2. Proprietor : Opposite Parties
M/s. Appasons Mobile Galary
2nd Floor, Abhilash Tourist Home
Station Road
Kannur – 670 601
O R D E R
Sri. Babu Sebastian, Member
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection
Act against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, praying for directing the opposite parties to replace a new phone or its value of Rs.4100 and Rs.2500 as a compensation to the complainant.
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows : The complainant submits that he purchased Nokia Asha 202 Mobile phone for consideration of Rs.4100 on 01.12.2012. He purchased the mobile phone from the 1st opposite party. The complainant further submits that 7 months after the purchase of the phone, the mobile phone stopped functioning. Complainant immediately approached the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party directed the complainant to approach the 2nd opposite party. As per the direction complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and entrusted the mobile phone for repair. Thereafter the 2nd opposite party returned the mobile phone to the complainant and informed that the mobile phone is not repairable and there is no chance to get warranty. The complainant further submit that, there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile phone so that the 2nd opposite party could not repair the mobile phone in the warranty period. Hence they committed unfair trade practice and deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
After receiving the complaint, Forum sent notice to the both parties. Though the notice was served to the 1st opposite party, 1st opposite party did not appear before the Forum and attend the complaint. The 2nd opposite party appeared and the version of the 2nd opposite party has been filed. The 2nd opposite party submits that the 1st opposite party is the dealer and 2nd opposite party is the authorized Service Centre, he is admitted that the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for repair the mobile phone. The 2nd opposite party contended that the mobile phone stopped function due to the liquid damage and it was occurred due to the careless use. So this this type of complaint will not come under the purview of the warranty condition, the defects of the mobile phone is irreparable hence, there is no deficiency in service by the opposite party and this complaint be dismissed. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed.
- Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the consumer is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?
- Relief and cost.
Evidence consists of chief affidavit filed by the complainant as PW1 and documentary evidence Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 marked on the side of the complainant.
Issues No.1 to 3 :
The complainant to substantiate his case has filed his affidavit evidence and he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. The complainant produced two documents which are marked as Ext.A1 and A2.
The complainant’s case is that he has purchased Nokia model mobile phone from the 1st opposite party, said mobile phone stopped functioning within the warranty period. Ext.A1 is the cash receipt which proves the cost of the mobile phone is worth Rs.4100. Ext.A2 is the service job sheet, which proves that the damage occurred in the warranty period. The 2nd opposite party contended that the mobile phone stopped functioning due to liquid damage. The terms and conditions of the warranty is not applicable in this case as the product was damaged due to external cause, ie liquid damage and it is beyond the control of the opposite party. So 2nd opposite party expressed their inability to repair the phone. It is only the version of the 2nd opposite party. The contention raised in the version can not be considered as evidence. After filing the version, the 2nd opposite party had not turned up before the Forum to prove this contention. This itself is the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
The 2nd opposite party is the authorized service centre of the Nokia Mobile Phone should be able to repair the same. The mobile phone was purchased 7 months prior to the damage and hence, the opposite party cannot plead that they are unable to repair the same. In our opinion, the contentions of the complainant are acceptable and the opposite party is deficient in service. The opposite parties are liable to replace a new phone of same model or to refund its value of Rs.4100 and to pay Rs.1000 as a compensaton together with Rs.500 as cost of the litigation.
In the result complaint is allowed, directing that the opposite parties should replace the mobile phone with a brand new handset of the same model or to refund its value Rs.4100 (Rupees Four Thousand One Hundred only) to the complainant and to pay Rs.1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as a compensation together with Rs.500 (Rupees Five Hundred only) as cost of the litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order under provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Bill dated 01.12.2012.
A2. Service Job Sheet dated 26.06.2013.
Exhibits for the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Chief affidavit
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
