DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  KOZHIKODE

PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB        : PRESIDENT

                         Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

                        Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

                         Wednesday  the  23^rd    day of February 2022

                                             C.C. 257/2020

Complainant

          Fayas

         S/o. Hussian, Haseena Manzil

          Kared Paramba, Feroke College (Via)

          Malappuram – 673 632.

          (By Adv. Jyothi Prasad.K.V)

Opposite Party

        3G Mobile world

         Rep. by its Manager

          Mythree Future, Door No.28/3856,

         R, RI, RI5, Pottammal Junction

          Kozhikode.

         (Ex-parte)

                                                ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT 

           This is a complaint filed under  the Consumer Protection Act.

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

On 23/09/2019 the complainant purchased  Nokia 6.1 plus mobile phone from the shop of the 1^st opposite party. But within one week, it became faulty. So he approached the opposite party who directed him to contact the shop ‘Flex’ at Link Road, Kozhikode. They told that the defect was due to  water entry  in the mobile phone.  But there was no occasion for such water entry  while the phone was in his possession. The shop owner  told that  the water entry might be during  packing and shipment and the consequent  fungus attack. He again approached the   opposite party,  but no positive action was taken. There is deficiency of service. Hence the complaint  for  replacement of the phone or return of the purchase price and for compensation.

3. The opposite  party was set ex-parte.

4. The points that arise for determination in this case are :

1. Whether  there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party ?
2. Reliefs and costs

5. Complainant was examined as PW1.  Exts A1 and  A2 were marked.
6. Heard .

7. Point No.1 –  Complainant is seeking replacement of the alleged defective mobile phone  or return of  the purchase price along with compensation  alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
8. The complainant who was examined as PW1 has  deposed in   support of the claim. The documents produced by him were marked as Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the retail invoice and Ext.A2 is the copy of the lawyer notice.

9. It is averred in the affidavit of PW1 thatafter one week of the purchase, the mobile phone became faultyand there was negligence on the part of the opposite party to rectify the defect in spite ofhis request including lawyer notice.The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged.The opposite partydid not turn uptogive his version. The complainant’s case stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2.

10. The prayer of the complainant for replacement of the phone or return of the purchase price cannot be allowed since no manufacturing defect is alleged or proved. But there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in not rectifying the defect. So the opposite party is to be directed to rectify the defect and make the mobile phone in sound workingcondition. The act of the opposite party has resulted inmental agony and hardshipto the complainant, for which, he is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- will be reasonable compensation this regard. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.2,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

11. Point No.2 :  In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows.

1. CC 257/2020 is allowed in part.
2.  The opposite party is hereby directed to  repair the mobile phone and return it to the complainant in sound working condition within 30 days of  its production before the opposite party. It is made clear that the complainant shall not be  required to pay any charges for such repair.
3. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to the complainant as compensation  for mental agony.
4. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
5.  The payment as aforestated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy this order.

Pronounced in open Commission on this the 23^rd day of February 2022.

Date of Filing: 17/12/2020

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext.A1 – Retail Invoice

Ext.A2 – Copy of the lawyer notice

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Nil

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 – Fayis - Complainant

Witnesses for the opposite party

Nil             Sd/                          Sd/-                  Sd/-

            PRESIDENT                MEMBER                MEMBER

                                                                  Forwarded/By Order

                                                                   Assistant Registrar