BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

Dated this the 11^th day of October 2021

                             Filed on: 05/06/2018

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                             President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                 Member

CC.No.236/2018

COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER

Rinal.P.A, S/o.P.H.Abdul Rahiman, Poothakuzhiyil House, Kannikalam,

House No.138, Chunda.P.O, Cherupuzha(Via), Kannur District,

Pin – 682 040.

(Party in Person only)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

Amazon India, Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1,Dr.Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram(W), Bangalore – 560 055, Karnathaka.

R
R

O R D E R

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Brief facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant Rinal.P.A had purchased a gionee A1 mobile from the opposite party’s website on 25/11/2017 for Rs.15,280/-.  Due to some battery charging problems the complainant visited the service centre of the opposite party, Voice Plus, 2^nd Floor, Cochin, Kerala on 25/04/2018 and the problem of the mobile phone was detected as a battery damaging issue. On checking it is found that IMEI was active on the complainant’s mobile on 11/06/2017.  Hence the service centre told the complainant that the complainant’s mobile phone’s warranty is already over(6 months) and they can’t replace the battery as per the warranty terms. The opposite party charged Rs.900/- from the complainant to replace the battery.  The complainant alleges that the opposite party had delivered a second hand mobile phone to the complainant on 25/11/2017.  The complainant also alleges that he had paid an extra amount of Rs.10,000/- for the purchase of the gionee A1 mobile.  The matter was informed to the Amazon India customer care but no one responded.  The complainant also attached the confirmation from the gionee service centre to the customer care that the complainant’s mobile gionee A1’s IMEI already latched on 11/06/2017.  The complainant also had paid Rs.310/- for the back case cover of the mobile phone on 30/11/2017.  The complainant submits that if he would like to buy a second hand handset he can buy it from any mobile shops.  The world class shopping website Amazon has committed unfair trade practice towards the complainant by selling a second hand mobile to the complainant through the online platform. Hence the complainant approached before the Commission to get back the price of the mobile phone Rs.15,280/- along with other amounts including the price of the tempered glass screen protection, back case cover, service charges, extended warranty charges etc. and a compensation Rs.90,833/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant.  

Notice

Notice was issued to the opposite party from this Forum/Commission on 14/06/2018.  The case was posted for the R/N appearance of opposite party to 05/07/2018. 

The notice sent to the opposite party was served on 22/06/2018 as revealed by proof of delivery of the postal department.  The opposite party never appeared before the Forum/Commission to contest the case.  Consequently they were set Ex-parte and the case was posted for the complainant’s evidence to 04/10/2018.

Evidence

        Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and documentary evidence which were marked as Exbt.A1 to A6.  No oral evidence adduced by the complainant.

        Heard the Complainant on 03/08/2021.

The Issues came up for consideration are as follows:

(1)    Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?

(2)      Compensation and Cost?

Issue No.1

           The complainant had purchased a gionee A1 mobile(Rs.15,280/-) from the Amazon website on 25/11/2017. The mobile phone had issued warranty for accessory’s for six months.  Due to some battery charging problem, the complainant visited the gionee service centre, Kochi(Voice Plus, 2^nd Floor, Cochin, Kerala) on 25/04/2018.  Exbt.A1 is the copy of the cover of complainant’s mobile phone showing IME No:863854033082500 in which the month and year of manufacture is shown as May 2017.  As per Exbt.A2, the complainant’s mobile phone’s IMEA No.’s activation date was shown as 11/06/2017.  Hence the warranty was over on 10/12/2017. The service centre executives told the complainant that since the warranty is over, they can’t replace the mobile phone free of cost.  Hence they charged Rs.900/- for replacing the battery of the complainant’s mobile phone.  The allegation of the complainant is that the Amazon had sold a second hand mobile to the complainant on 25/11/2017.  The matter was informed to the customer care attaching the confirmation given by the service centre and no reply was received to the complainant from the customer care.  Exbt.A3 is the copy of the E-mail communication from gionee stating that the activation date of the mobile handset is 11/06/2017 and the complainant had purchased the handset from Amazon in November 2017 ie. After 5 months.  The complainant is requested to contact Amazon team for further assistance.  Exbt.A4 is also an E-mail sent to the complainant from the service centre Voice Plus, Cochin regarding the mobile phone’s battery and warranty issue.  As per Exbt.A4 a message is forwarded to the complainant.  “Please find the activation date of the said handset in our CRM as it is 11.06.2017 and the warranty for accessory is 6 months from the date of activation, so we are unable to consider it as accessory warranty.  So please share the copy of purchase proof so we can take up it with the company, for further advice”, it Shows that activation date of the mobile handset is 11/06/2017 itself.  Exbt.A5 is the tax invoice/bill of supply/cash memo by Amazon is for Rs.15,280/- as per the order given by the complainant on 25/11/2017 vide order No:406-0216954-7274741.  It is sold by Digital World.  Exbt.A6 is also a tax invoice/bill of supply given by Amazon to the complainant on 25/11/2017 for the complainant’s mobile phone’s glass screen protection for Rs.250/- vide order No.406-0216954-7274741.

           The complainant also filed 4 documents along with the complaint eventhough it is not seen marked.

           We have verified all the documents along with the complaint and allegations submitted by the complainant.   As per Exbt.A2, A3, A4 produced by the complainant, the complainant’s mobile phone’s IMEI No. was active on 11/06/2017. The complainant purchased the mobile phone on 25/11/2017 as evidenced by Exbt.A5.  The service centre Voice Plus denied the accessory warranty on 28/04/2018(Exbt.A4) when the complainant approached the service centre due to some battery charging issue of the mobile phone.  The complainant alleges that the service centre had charged Rs.900/- from the complainant to replace the battery of the mobile phone. The complainant had established his case with substantiating evidences and without any speck of doubt to the effect that he had sustained to severe deficiency of service from the side of the opposite party by delivering a mobile phone to the complainant having IMEI No. already activated and it leads to the denial of accessory warranty of the complainant’s mobile phone by the Gionee’s service centre.  Hence Point No.(1) is proved in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.2

            The complainant had to suffer great mental agony, pain and other hardships due to the deficient action of the opposite party. 

            In this situation, we do direct the opposite party

1. to refund Rs.15,530/-(Rs.15,280+250) to the complainant as the price of the mobile phone along with price of the glass screen protection.
2. We direct the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency of service attributed towards the complainant.

1. We fix Rs.2,000/- as cost of proceedings which shall also be paid to the complainant by the opposite party.

            The above order shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

        Pronounced in the Commission on this the 11^th day of October 2021.

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                             D.B.Binu, President                                                                                     

                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                           V.Ramachandran, Member

s/

                                                                             Forwarded/by Order

Despatch date:

By hand:                                                                     Senior Superintendent

            By post:         

                                                                      APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits:

 Opposite party's Exhibits: 

Deposition:

NIL