By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite parties to return the value of mobile Rs.12,800/- with 12% interest till realisation, to pay Rs.25,000/- as damages and loss and to pay the cost of the proceedings.

2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant purchased a brand new samsung Galaxy J5 4G mobile from 1^st Opposite party on 29.12.2015 for sum of Rs.12,800/-. The company offered 1 year guaranty. Few days after, the phone shows malfunctioning like blinking of LCD. The screen was not clear and the Complainant was unable to use it properly. The 1^st Opposite Party directed the Complainant to the 2^nd Opposite Party being the service centre. The Complainant entrusted the mobile to 2^nd Opposite party twice. The phone was temporarily repaired and returned. On 22.02.2016, the 2^nd Opposite Party received the mobile for repair and issued receipt. But the 2^nd Opposite Party thereafter has not returned the mobile to the Complainant. The act of Opposite Parties is deficiency of service and hence the complaint is filed.

3. On receipt of complaint , notices were issued to Opposite Parties and notices were served to Opposite Parties. The 1^st Opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. The 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties not appeared before the Forum and they were set exparte. In the version of 1^st Opposite Party, 1^st Opposite Party admitted that the mobile is sold by the 1^st Opposite party to the Complainant. But 1^st Opposite Party denied the version that the Complainant had approached the 1^st Opposite party with complaint in mobile and the 1^st Opposite party directed the complainant to the 2^nd Opposite Party. The case of 1^st Opposite Party is that the 1^st Opposite party came to know about the Complaint of mobile only when the

1^st Opposite Party received notice from the Forum. The 1^st Opposite party is only a sales centre and there is no deficiency of service from the part of 1^st Opposite Party.

4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite parties?

2. Relief and costs.

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 are marked. 1^st Opposite Party also filed proof affidavit and 1^st Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. The Ext.A1 document is the purchase bill dated 29.12.2015 and Ext.A2 document is the receipt issued by the service centre ie 2^nd Opposite Party to the Complainant at the time of entrusting the mobile for service. In Ext.A2 document, it is shown that the Complainant reported complaint to the service centre that the mobile is having LCD blinking problem. The case of Complainant is that the mobile is not so far returned to the Complainant after rectifying the defect. It is up to the 2^nd Opposite Party to the state whether the mobile is having such a complaint and whether it is rectified and delivered to the Complainant. But 2^nd Opposite Party remained exparte. So there is nothing to disbelieve the case of Complainant. 1^st Opposite Party is only sales centre and the Complainant specifically stated that the Complainant had approached 1^st Opposite Party with Complaint and 1^st Opposite party directed the Complainant to 2^nd Opposite Party for service. Hence the Forum found no deficiency of service from the part of 1^st Opposite Party. 2^nd Opposite Party is the authorised service centre of the mobile and 3^rd Opposite Party is the manufacturing company. Hence the Forum found that 3^rd Opposite Party vicarious liability and 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite parties are liable to return back the mobile to the Complainant after rectifying the defect or to pay the cost of mobile to the Complainant. As per complaint, the Complainant only prayed for return back the cost of mobile and not the mobile set entrusted to 2^nd Opposite party on 22.02.2016. The Forum is of the opinion that the Complainant purchased the mobile for his daily use by expecting proper service to the mobile from 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties. But the Complainant could not use the set for a long time and 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties failed to give proper service also. Since the mobile set is electronic device, if it is kept idle for a long time, naturally its functioning quality will be diminished and become out dated. The Forum found deficiency of service from the part of 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties. Hence it is just and proper to order for a return of purchase price of the mobile to the Complainant by the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite parties. The 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite parties are also liable to pay cost and compensation also. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found against 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties, 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties are liable to pay the cost and compensation also.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.12,800/- (Rupee Twelve thousand and Eight hundred) only with 12% interest from 22.02.2016 till payment. The 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 20^th day of October 2016.

Date of Filing:26.04.2016.

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Shafeer Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Sony Sebastian. Mobile Shop.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Invoice No. 18254. dt:29.12.2015.

A2. Receipt. dt:22.02.2016.

Exhibits for the opposite Parties:

Nil.