BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL RUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 12th day of April 2017

Filed on : 21-06-2016

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.No.347/2016

Between

Muhammed Baiju A.R., : Complainant

S/o. Abdhul Rahiman Kunju, (party - in - person)

Thaipparambil house,

Civil Station Ward,

Alappuzha.

Official Address

Muhammed Baiju A.R.,

Treatment organizer, Grade - 1.

District T.B. Centre,

Karuvelippadi, Kochi-682 005.

And

The Manager, : Opposite party

R. Logic - Technology Service Pvt. Ltd., (By Adv. P. Jayabal Menon

Kanoos Tower, Kalathiprambu, M/s. J&J associates, T3,
Ernakulam-682 016. III Floor, Empire Buildings,

High Court East End,

Kochi-682 018)

(absent)

ORDER

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

1. Complainant's case

2. The complainant had given a Samsung Galaxy A7 phone on 05-05-2016 before the opposite party, the authorized service centre of Samsung Mobiles, for repairs. On 13-05-2016 it was returned after rectification. The complainant paid Rs. 7,395/- towards service charges of the display by giving a warranty of 3 months. On 8th June 2016 the display was again become faulty and therefore on 09-06-2016 the phone was entrusted to the opposite party for repairs. However, the opposite party was not prepared to repair without further payments on the ground that the phone had internal impacts due to its falling down. The complainant was not provided the warranty of the previous repairs on untenable grounds. The complainant therefore seeks interference of this Forum, it avails the facilities warranted by the opposite parties.

3. Notice was issued to the opposite party and it was served on them. However they did not appear to contest the matter either by filing their version or by adducing evidence against the case of the complainant. Therefore the opposite party was set ex-parte.

4. When the matter came up for complainant's evidence the complainant filed an affidavit in support of the contentions raised by him in the complaint. Exbt. A1 tax invoice was also produced. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant. Exbt. A1 is the invoice dated 13-05-2016 issued in favour of the complainant by the opposite party in respect of the repairs of the mobile phone which according to the complainant belonged to him. It is seen that the opposite party had changed the LCD assembly of the Mobile phone on a payment of Rs. 7,394.63. Though Exbt. A1 is silent about any warranty about repairs, we find no reason to disbelieve the sworn affidavit of the complainant wherein he had stated that the mobile phone had rendered useless within one month from the date of repairs effected by the opposite party. The complainant swear that the opposite party refused to repair the display unit. Despite the promise of repairs under warranty given to him at the time of earlier repair. The opposite party did not appear to refute any of the claims made by the complainant. We find that there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not repairing the phone within a reasonable time from the date of previous repairs done by them, irrespective of the fact as to whether there was any written warranty in respect of the previous repairs. A consumer is entitled to get the defective repairing rectified within a reasonable period as the opposite party had collected more than Rs. 7,000/- towards repair charges from the complainant.

5. In view of the above proved circumstances, we find that the complaint is allowable, the opposite party is liable to repair the Samsung Galaxy A7 Mobile handset belonging to the complainant free of cost with a written warranty of 3 months from the date of such repairs and delivery of the mobile phone to the complainant. The complainant is also found entitled to realize the costs of the proceedings which we estimate at Rs. 3,000/- .

6. In the result, the opposite party is directed to repair the Samsung Galaxy A7 mobile phone belonging to the complainant and deliver it fault - free with 3 months warranty for the repaired unit, to the complainant within a period of 7 days of its production.

We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards the costs of this proceedings, to the complainant.

The above said order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 12th day of April 2017.

Sd/-

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/-

Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/-

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Forwarded/ByOrder,

Senior Superintendent.

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Exbt. A1 : Tax invoice dt. 13-05-2016

Opposite party's Exhibits: : Nil

Copy of order despatched on:

By Post: By Hand: