Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows.  The complainant purchased a Mobile Phone – (Lenovo A7700 in 16 GB model) on 08/02/2017 from the 1^st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.9,300/-.  After a period of 6 months from its purchase this phone was a complaint of defect in ‘charging’ so that the complainant entrusted the same to the 2^nd opposite party’s shop for curing the defect by the advice of the 1^st opposite party.  Though the 2^nd opposite party returned the phone to the complainant on 11/10/2017 informing him that the defect in charging was redressed it is contented that against the said assurance of the opposite parties the phone was having the same defect and it happened due to the defect in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence this case to replace another phone or paying the cost of the phone along with compensation, cost etc. etc.
2. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for appearance.  The opposite parties were received notice and the 1^st opposite party filed their version.  Though 2^nd opposite party received notice from this Forum the 1^st opposite party did not appear before this Forum.  Hence the 2^nd opposite party was declared ex parte.  The version of the 1^st opposite party is as follows.  According to the 1^st opposite party this case is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is contented that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as a case of non-jointer of the necessary parties.  It is admitted that the complainant he who purchased the said mobile phone from the 1^st opposite party as alleged by the complainant.  It is contented that the authorized service center of the mobile phone updated and re-installed the software of the complainant’s phone and it was returned to him on 11/10/2017.  It is further contented that on 13/10/2017 again this phone was brought before the 1^st opposite party with an issue relating to battery charging.  The 2^nd opposite party inspected the phone and found that it become defective as a result of water damage.  There is no protection under warranty if defect happened due to water damage.  It is also contended that the 1^st opposite party has no right or authority to replace the phone and also contended that the manufacturing company who was also not in the party array.  It is also contended that there is no cause of action for this case and this opposite party acted as a man of prudent and committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  Therefore this opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
3. We peruse the complaint, version and records before us and 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 the relief and costs?

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant he who is examined as PW1 and marked Ext. A1 to A4.  Ext.A1 is the invoice bill dated 08/02/2017.  Ext.A2 is the service order dated 13/10/2017.  Ext.A3 is the goods outward note issued by 1^st opposite party dated 11/10/2017.  Ext.A4 is the warranty card issued by the 1^st opposite party.  Though the 1^st opposite party file a version either 1^st opposite party or his counsel did not cross examine PW1.  After the closure of the evidence we heard the complainant alone. 
5. Point No.1: The 1^st opposite party seriously contented that this case is not maintainable either in law or on facts on ground that the case is suffering non-jointer of the necessary parties.  Though the 1^st opposite party contented as above he did not adduce any material evidence or pointed out to substantiate the legal position to establish his legal contention at the time of trial or even at the time of hearing.  It is also to see that the complainant he who purchased a mobile phone from the 1^st opposite party for a consideration of the opposite parties and also proved that the 2^nd opposite party was the service center of the 1^st opposite party therefore we can come to a clear conclusion to the effect that this case is maintainable before this Forum and also found that complainant is a consumer and both opposite parties are service providers of the complainant.  Hence Point No. 1 found accordingly.
6. Point No.2&3:  For the sake of convince we would like to consider Point No. 2&3 together.  The complainant he who proved that he purchased a mobile phone from the 1^st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.9,300/- on 08/02/2017 through Ext.A1 document.  Ext.A2 is the job order issued by the 2^nd opposite party in favour of the complainant.  As per Ext.A2 it is proved that the mobile phone is enjoying warranty status and also proved that they carried out the work of the mobile phone on 13/10/2017.  When we refer the version of the 1^st opposite party in para 2 it is admitted that they attended the work of the mobile phone on 11/10/2017 and updated software.  So we can infer that the mobile phone which caused the defect within the warranty period.  It is also proved that the 2^nd opposite party service center entrusted the said phone to the complainant on 11/10/2017 after installing new software as discussed earlier.  The Ext.A3 dated 11/10/2017 shows that the complainant who entrusted the mobile phone for clearing the defect on ‘battery backup’  and also shows that the mobile phone is having the software complaint.  Ext.A4 is a warranty card issued in favour of the complainant by the 1^st opposite party.  Though Ext.A4 carries any signature, date or name we can accept this Ext.A4 as the warranty in favour of the complainant.  Since the opposite parties are already admitted through Ext.A2 and Ext.A3 that the mobile phone had repaired at the time of its warranty.  When we peruse the oral evidence and evidence on exhibits before this Forum we can see that the whole evidence before us is unchallengeable as far as this case is concerned.  In the light of the evidence discussed above it is to be attributed that the case of the complainant is believable and also proved that though the PW1 approached several time to the 1^st opposite party for the clearance of the defect of his phone the 2^nd opposite party service center totally ignore the complainant and returned the said phone to him without rectifying the prevailing defect.  It is to be presumed that the dealer is responsible to rectify the defect of an article sold by them at the time of its warranty.  Therefore we find that the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party are jointly and severely liable to the complaint.  Hence point No. 2&3 are found in favour of the complainant. 
7. In the result we pass the following orders.

1. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party are hereby directed to replace the new phone (same model and Specification) to the complainant within 15 days of receipt of this order if fails, the opposite parties are liable to refund the price of the mobile phone Rs.9,300/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Three Hundred Only) along with 10% interest from the date of filing of this case i.e., 27/10/2017 onwards. 
2. The compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) and a cost of Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) are also allowed to the complainant with 10% interest from the opposite parties 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 30^th day of May, 2018.

                                                                                                                       P.Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                                                                                    (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member):(Sd/-)

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1: Sudhakaran.K.N.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1: Invoice bill dated 08/02/2017.

A2: Service order dated 13/10/2017.

A3: Goods outward note issued by 1^st opposite party dated 11/10/2017.

A4: Warranty card issued by the 1^st opposite party.

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. Sudhakaran.K.N,

Attappallil Aswathy Bhavanam, Anjalithanam P.O.,

2. Manager,

S Squares Technologies, Door No: 39/626,

Oxygen Tech Tower, M.C.Road, Ramanchira,

Muthoor P.O, Thiruvalla.

3. The Sales Manager,

Voice Plus, Opp.Mount Carmel School,

Kanjikuzhy, Kottayam.

4. The Stock file.