Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):
The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.
- The case of the complainant is as follows. The complainant purchased a Mobile Phone on 29/04/2017 of Amazon by an online purchase for an amount of Rs. 7,040/-. The Mobile Phone bearing No. IMEI 911510100201256 Phone became defective within few days of purchase so that the complainant entrusted the phone to 2nd opposite party showroom at Pathanamthitta for rectification. The 2nd opposite party informed that the battery and motherboard of the mobile phone were defective and promise to return the phone within 10 days after necessary repairement. The 2nd opposite party so far not return the phone to the complainant. Though the complainant demanded the return of the phone to the 2nd opposite party he irresponsibly reacted to the complainant and scold him. According to the complainant the act of the opposite parties are deficiency in service on their part and they are liable to the complainant. Hence this case for refund of the price of the mobile phone compensation, cost, etc. etc.
- This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite party for appearance. Though 1st and 2nd opposite party received notice from this Forum 2nd opposite party failed to appear before this Forum, hence this Forum set exparty against 2nd opposite party on 30/08/2017. The complainant he who filed an amendment petition as I.A 96/17 before the Forum to correct the address of 1st opposite party, we heard the said petition and allowed the prayer for amendment. The 1st opposite party also did not appear before the Forum hence on 01/11/2017 the 1st opposite party also declared exparty by this Forum.
- We peruse the complaint and records produced before this Forum and raised the following issues for consideration.
- Whether this complaint is allowable?
- Regarding relief and cost?
- In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined him as PW1. Through PW1 Ext. A1 to Ext. A3 are also marked. Ext. A1 is the purchase bill dated:29/04/2017. Ext. A2 is the service job sheet dated: 10/05/2017 issued by Rolex mobile house, Pathanamthitta (OP2). Ext. A3 is a user manual for the Mobile Phone. After the closure of evidence we heard the complainant.
- Point No. 1 & 2:- For the sake of convenience we would like to consider the Point No.1 and 2 together. When we go through the proof affidavit of PW1 we can see that PW1 who purchased a Mobile Phone through his friend by– online purchase on 29/04/2017 by paying an amount of Rs. 7040/-. In order to substantiate this fact PW1 produced and marked Ext. A1 purchase bill dated:29/04/2017. When we go through Ext. A1 it shows that this computer generated invoice carriage the price of the Mobile Phone and address of the complainant. Ext. A2 is a copy of the service job sheet dated: 10/05/2017 issued to the complainant by 2nd opposite party for the rectification of the defect happened to PW1’s Mobile Phone. As per Ext. A2 it shows that the Mobile Phone had a complaint of low battery backtop and overheating at calling time. Ext. A3 is a user manual for the Mobile Phone. The PW1 further deposed that when the Mobile Phone became defective he contacted 2nd opposite party the recognized service center of 1st opposite party for its rectification. Though the 2nd opposite party accepted the Mobile Phone for its rectification the 2nd opposite party did not return the same to the complainant till this time. It is also deposed that the Mobile Phone is enjoying a warranty protection for which the opposite parties are liable to rectify the mistake. When we evaluate the evidence adduced by the PW1 it is to see that the evidence before us is unchallengeable since the opposite parties are exparty in this case. When we go through the evidence discussed above there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence adduced by PW1 in this case. Therefore we find that the complaint is allowable and also find that 2nd opposite party is the authorized service person of 1st opposite party. Hence, the opposite parties are jointly and severely liable to the complainant. Therefore Point No. 1 & 2 found in favour of the complainant.
- In the result we pass the following orders.
- The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are hereby directed to refund the price of the Mobile Price Rs. 7,040/-(Rupees Seven Thousand and Forty only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of order onwards.
- The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and a cost of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of order onwards.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of December, 2017.
(Sd/-)
P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,
(President)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Binoy.P.C
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : The purchase bill dated:29/04/2017.
A2 : The service job sheet dated: 10/05/2017 issued by Rolex mobile house,
Pathanamthitta.
A3 : User manual for the Mobile Phone.
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) Bijoy P.C,
Pallikunnel House,
Maniyar P.O, Vadasserikkara.
(2) Staunch Etail Service LLP,
Plot No.33, Block 4,
Mohan Corporate Industrial Estate,
New Delhi – 110044.
(3)Rolex Mobile House,
Ennasseril Building,
Opp. Union Bank of India,
College Road, Pathanamthitta.
(4)The Stock File.
