BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              :           PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           :           MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             :           MEMBER

C.C.No. 478/2019  Filed on 24/12/2019

ORDER DATED: 17/08/2022

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT:

1. This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.  After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:
2. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant placed an order for the purchase of one new Poco F1 mobile phone set on 08/06/2019 based on the advertisement published by the 1^st opposite party in their online shopping platform.  At the time of purchase the assurance given as per the advertisement was that the said mobile phone set will have full warranty coverage for one year (for hand set and accessories) from the date of purchase against any manufacturing or defect of any nature and also assured that the defect if any will be rectified through their authorized service centre at Thiruvananthapuram i.e., through 3^rd opposite party.  The complainant has remitted Rs.18,869/- towards purchase price of the above referred mobile phone set.  The complainant received the mobile phone set on 30/06/2019 with the invoice bill dated 08/06/2019.  The complainant further submitted that on the very first day of receipt of the phone set, the same was not working properly as per the undertaking given by the 1^st opposite party through their advertisement.  The charge of the battery was draining out within short time of charging, and the phone set getting automatically switching off while in use frequently and was giving frequent complaints.  According to the complainant the said phone set was not working since 03/10/2019.  The above fact was informed to the 1^st opposite party over phone repeatedly and at last the mobile phone set was personally hand over by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party on 07/10/2019.  The 3^rd opposite party is the authorized service center.  At the time of handing over the mobile phone set, the original of purchase invoice was also handed over to the 3^rd opposite party for getting it repaired.  The authorized service centre returned the mobile phone set after inspection, stating that the mobile phone purchased and supplied to the complainant was a defective second hand phone set, which was originally purchased and used by somebody else during 2018 and the one year service warranty of the mobile phone set already over.  The service centre technician further submitted that the phone set was defective and beyond repair and for replacing the mother board and repairing the same, an amount of Rs.11,000/- is required.  The complainant further submitted that inspite of repeated requests the opposite parties were not ready to solve the issues faced by the complainant by purchasing the above referred mobile phone set.  According to the complainant these act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence complainant approached this Commission to redress his grievances.
3. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties.  after accepting the notice the 3^rd opposite party not appeared before this Commission and hence on 04/02/2020, the 3^rd opposite party was declared ex parte.  As the notice issued to the 2^nd opposite party returned unserved, the complainant was directed to take steps against the 2^nd opposite party.  Subsequently the complainant filed an application as IA.132/2022 to delete the name of the 2^nd opposite party from the party array and the same was allowed on 05/04/2022.  The 1^st opposite party though represented through counsel, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, failed to file written version and as there was no representation from the side of the 1^st opposite party, this Commission declared 1^st opposite party ex parte on 05/04/2022.
4.   The evidence in this case consists of PW1, Ext.P1 to P7 on the side of the complainant.    The 1^st & 3^rd opposite parties were declared ex party and 2^nd opposite party was deleted from the party array.  There is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite parties. 
5. Issues to be considered:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

                   on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitle to the relief claimed in the
3.  
4. Order as to cost?

6. Heard.  Perused records and affidavit.  To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Ext.P1 to P7 were produced and marked.  Ext.P1 is the copy of purchase bill of Rs.18,869/- dated 08/06/2019.  Ext.P2 is the Copy of Advocate notice dated 23/10/2019 addressed to the 1^st opposite party.  Ext.P3 is the Copy of Advocate notice dated 23/10/2019 addressed to the 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.P4 is the Copy of Advocate notice dated 28/11/2019 addressed to the 3^rd opposite party.  Ext.P5 is the copy of reply notice.  Ext.P6 is the copy of unserved registered letter addressed to 2^nd opposite party returned by postal department.  Ext.P7 is the copy of Acknowledgment card signed by 3^rd opposite party.  As there is no contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands un challenged.  In the absence of any evidence from the side of the opposite parties to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant, we accept the evidence adduced by the complaint.  By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Ext.P1 to P7, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite parties.  As per evidence available before this Commission, we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  We also found that due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered metal agony and financial loss.  As the mental agony and financial loss were the result of the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, we find that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant.  In view of the above discussion and in the       absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.          

In the result the complaint is partly allowed.We direct the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) as compensation along with Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) being the cost of this proceeding within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till the date of realization/remittance.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 17^th day of August,  2022.

R

C.C. No. 478/2019

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                                      PRESIDENT