THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C.580/2015

Dated this the 3^rd day of July, 2017

(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.              :  President)

                                                            Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A.                   :  Member

                                                            Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B.     :  Member

ORDER

Present: Rose Jose, President:             

This petition is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for getting an order directing the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile phone with a defect free new phone, compensation of Rs.40,000/- and cost of the proceedings.

The petitioner is a Development Officer in LIC of India. The fact of the case is that on believing the words and promises of the opposite party No. 1, the dealer, the petitioner purchased a Micro max-CANVAS KNIGHT WHITE 2.2 mobile phone on 17/08/2014 for Rs.20,303/-. Before purchasing the 1^st opposite party made him believe that this handset is one of the best products now available in the market and providing one year warranty and insurance coverage. After a period of 10 months the mobile became defective and the petitioner entrusted the same for repair with 2^nd opposite party, the authorized service centre on 16/06/2015. The opposite party No. 2 assured him to return the same after repair within a few days. But even after repeated demands and request the opposite party No. 2 has not returned the handset to the petitioner. Only after receiving a notice from the petitioner, the opposite party No. 2 returned the repaired handset to the petitioner. There was an unreasonable delay of more than two months for the repair works. The petitioner further alleged that within a few days after repair it became defective again and had given to the 2^nd opposite party for repair. Due to the delay in repair, 2^nd opposite party had given a refreshed handset to the complainant. But the same was not working. The opposite parties are liable to rectify the defect within a reasonable time at free of cost or to replace the same with a new one. Petitioner contended that as LIC Development Officer, he is doing business and giving motivation tools to his agents mainly through by using internet, e-mail etc. Due to the non use of internet facility in the mobile, he has sustained a loss of Rs.500/- per day. The delay, negligence and failure in repair of mobile defeated the very purpose of its purchase and that caused loss of work, mental pain and other sufferings. Hence this petition.

Notice sent to all opposite parties. 3^rd opposite party appeared but not filed version. Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 has not appeared or filed version. Hence all opposite parties set ex-parte and posted for complainant’s evidence.

Evidence consists of chief affidavit and Ext.s A1 to A3. On perusing the documents it is found that Ext. A1 is the copy of invoice of mobile and Ext. A2  and  A3 are the copies of job sheet. Ext. A1 to A3 documents clearly showed that the averments of the petitioner are true and correct. Ext. A2 and A3 are the clear cut evidence for proving the non-functioning of the mobile in the warranty period itself. Opposite party has not appeared or produced any evidence to discredit the above documents or to contradict the statements of the petitioner. Hence the allegation of the petitioner stands unchallenged and proved. While perusing all the documents we found that this acts of the opposite party ie. inordinate  delay in repair, non-replacement of the defective mobile in the warranty period itself amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Nowadays mobile phone became  part of a common man’s day to day activities. The petitioner is a Development Officer of the LIC, the absence of a mobile phone will very badly affect his job. Though the petitioner prayed for Rs.40,000/- as compensation for his loss, he has not produced any evidence to prove the exact loss sustained by him. So we are fixing Rs.8,000/- as compensation which we feel reasonable in the instant case.

Considering the facts of the case and relying on the evidence adduced by the petitioner, we are of the view that the act of the opposite parties amounts  to deficiency in service on their side and hence liable to compensate the petitioner for his loss and sufferings.

In the result, the following order is passed.

The opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered to refund Rs.20,303/- (Rupees twenty thousand three hundred and three only), price of the mobile, Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Dated this the 3^rd day of July, 2017

Date of filing: 13/11/2015

SD/-MEMBER                          SD/-PRESIDENT                SD/-MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Copy of invoice dated 17/08/2014

A2. Copy of jab sheet

A3. Copy of job sheet

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant:

None

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None                                                             

Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT