By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act to get the price of the defective mobile set with cost and compensation.

2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant purchased a Lenovo A6000 plus Black mobile phone from 2^nd opposite party. Opposite party No.2 delivered the mobile set to complainant's residence and received an amount of Rs.7,500/- as demanded in the bill. The 3^rd opposite party making business through the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and they are the authorized service center and dealer of the 3^rd opposite party. At the time of purchase the 2^nd opposite party offered warranty and effective service for the mobile phone, in case of any manufacturing defect caused for a period of 1 year from the date of purchase but within 2 months from the date of purchase it showed malfunctioning overheat and the same was switched off while talking. Thereafter the mobile phone stopped its functioning on 25.01.2016. Then the complainant entrusted the set to the 1^st opposite party the authorized service center through his friend. At the time of receiving the set, 1^st opposite party assured the repair and return of the mobile phone within 4 days and issued a receipt to that effect. But after the repair the complaint was still existing, subsequently complainant approached the 1^st opposite party on 15.02.2016 and handed over the set to opposite party No.1 for curing the defects. As per the information given from the opposite party No.1 they have replaced the board and defective parts but immediately after the set was overheated and switched off. Then on 29.02.2016 complainant once again entrusted the handset to 1^st opposite party but after the repair the complaints were still existing. Hence filed this complaint.

3. On receipt of complaint, notices served to opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 and 2 not appeared before the Forum, hence their name called absent and set ex-parte. Opposite party No.3 appeared and version filed.

4. In the version, opposite party No.3 stated that this opposite party has always aimed customer satisfaction as its first priority and values the relationships with its customers and this complainant is not a consumer as stipulated and defined in the Consumer Protection Act. This opposite party denied the claim regarding warranty and there is no such defects or complaints in the mobile phone as stated in the complaint and admittedly the complainant purchased the mobile phone on 27.07.2015, but entrusted the set for repair on 25.01.2016, that itself shows that the complainant used the mobile phone for more than 5 months with the alleged complaints, same is the sole reason for the complaints if any to the mobile. Whenever the complainant approached the opposite parties alleging complaints, all the times complaints were cured free of cost. The complainant is still using the said mobile phone. This opposite party is also ready and willing to service the mobile and there is no manufacturing defect to the product and complainant not produced any Expert evidence. Opposite party further submitted that there is negligence from the part of complainant and delay in producing the mobile phone for repair. Hence he is not entitled to get any relief as claimed.

5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A6 documents and MO-1 were marked. Ext.A1 is the Bill dated 26.07.2015. Ext.A2 and A3 are the copy of Lenovo Service Records. Ext.A4 is the Copy of Service Job Sheet from Nokia care dated 29.02.2016. dated Ext.A5 is the Warranty Card. Ext.A6 is the Product Information guide.

6. On perusal of complaint, version, affidavit and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

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

2. Relief and Cost.

7. Point No.1:- On going through the complaint and affidavit it is found that within few months of the purchase MO-1 showed some defects and complainant entrusted the set to the service center of opposite party No.1 on 27.01.2016 and 15.02.2016 through Ext.A2 and A3. To prove the present defect complainant produced Ext.A4 Service Job Sheet given from Nokia care, Kalpetta. The present problem of the set noted in Ext.A4 is overheat and low battery backup. On perusal of Ext.A2 and A3 we found that overheat and battery issue was already noted in this service records given by authorized service centre and complainant produced Ext.A5 Warranty card to prove that the alleged complaint occurred within one year ie on warranty period. The opposite party No.1 service center of the Lenovo company admitted the defect of the mobile phone through Ext.A2 and A3. Hence in our view there is no need of further Expert opinion and the defective mobile phone also produced before the Forum and marked as MO-1. On examination we could not switch on the set . Through Ext.A1 Retail Invoice complainant proved that he is the owner of the mobile phone. In Ext.A2 and A3 user name is shown as Lithin but complainant argued that he had entrusted the set through his friend, and in the witness box he deposed that his friend used this hand set for a short period, now it is with him. Being the owner and consumer of MO-1, this complainant have the right to file this complaint before the Forum. Relying on the evidences and records we are of the view that there was some complaints with respect to the mobile phone within few months from the date of purchase. Through Ext.A1 to A5 documents complainant proved his case that there were defects in the handset and the defects were also noticed from the service records. Considering the above referred documentary evidences this Forum is of the view that opposite parties were deficient in their service and the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed in the complaint. The next question which arises for consideration is who is liable to replace the set and pay the compensation and cost of litigation to the complainant. Since the handset was manufactured by opposite party No.3 distributed by opposite party No.2 and serviced by opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 and 2 were ex-parte in this proceedings and opposite party No.3 opposed the case. Since opposite party No.1 and 2 being ex-parte they are liable to compensate the complainant. The point No.1 is found accordingly.

8. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favour of complainant, he is entitled to get the price of the defective mobile phone with cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, since the opposite party No.1 and 2 are ex-parte the opposite party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.7,499/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety nine) ie the price of the mobile phone to the complainant and the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) as cost and compensation to the complainant. Both parties should comply the Order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. Failing which the complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 10% for the whole sum till realization. On complying the Order the opposite party No.2 can release the MO-1 from the Forum.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of June 2016.

Date of Filing: 02.05.2016.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1. Sajeendran. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Retail Invoice. Dt:26.07.2015.

A2. Copy of Lenovo Service Record.

A3. Copy of Lenovo Service Record.

A4. Copy of Service Job Sheet. Dt:29.02.2016.

A5. Warranty Card.

A6. Lenovo Product Information Guide.

MO-1 (Series). Mobile phone and Charger.

Exhibits for the opposite parties:-

Nil.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

a/-