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
Thursday the 23rd day of February 2023
C.C.219/2021
Complainant
Ranjith G, S/o Gangadharan Nair,
Sreenilayam (H),
Kizhakkummuri (P.O),Kakkodi (Via)
Kozhikode-673 611.
(By Adv.Sri. Dinesh O.K)
Opposite Party
1. Amazon,
Represented through its Manager,
Brigade Gateway,
8th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road,
Malleswaram (W), Bangalore -560 055,
Karnataka, India.
2. Darshita Aashiyana Private Limited,
Rep by its Manager,
No.1/B Indo Space Logistics Park,
Poduvoyal, Durainallur Village,
Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallar,
Thamilnadu -601 206.
(By Adv.Sri. Gimmy George)
ORDER
By.Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 17-10-2020 the complainant purchased a ONE PLUS NORD 5G mobile through Amazon paying Rs.27,999/-. The Second opposite party is seller of the product. The opposite parties have provided a one year manufacturer warranty for the device and 6 months warranty for the in-box accessories including batteries from the date of purchase. The name and address of the manufacturer is not mentioned in the invoice.
3. On using the product, the display was partially separated from the device in the month of August 2021and it was immediately reported to the nearest service centre at Kozhikode on 10-08-2021. But they refused to repair the device stating that approval was not accorded by the seller. On 13-09-2021 the complainant issued a notice to the second opposite party calling up on them either to replace the device or get it serviced free of cost. Though the notice was received, no reply was sent. On 14-10-2021, notice was issued to the first opposite party with the same request. Despite receipt of notice, no reply was sent by the first opposite party as well. Due to the non-servicing of the device in time, the complainant could not restore some important official data which he had stored in the device. He could not attend the important calls of his friends and relatives abroad. He lost some personal data he had stored in the device. The opposite parties deliberately neglected the genuine request of the complainant to get the product serviced or helped him in solving the issue. The act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint for the replacement of the defective device with a new one or refund of the price along with compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
4. On receipt of notice, the first opposite party entered appearance, but failed to file written version within the stipulated time. Hence the first opposite party was set ex-parte. IA No.324/2022 filed by the first opposite party to set aside the ex-parte order and to receive written version was dismissed as per order dated 08-02-2023. Despite receipt of notice, the second opposite party failed to appear and was set ex-parte.
5. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
(2). Reliefs and costs.
6. Evidence consists of oral evidence of PW 1 and Exts A1 to A3 and A3 (a) on the side of the complainant. The mobile handset produced by the complainant was marked as MO 1.
7. Heard the complainant.
8. Point No.1 : The complainant has approached this Commission seeking replacement of the mobile hand set or refund of the purchase price along with compensation, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The specific allegation is that the device purchased by him from the opposite parties became defective during the warranty period and the opposite parties declined his genuine request to get the product repaired and they did not provide any help to the complainant in solving the problem.
9. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1. PW 1 has filed affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the invoice dated 17-10-2020, Exts A2 is the copy of the lawyer notice dated 13-09-2021, Ext A3 is the copy of the lawyer notice dated 14-10-2021 and Exts A3(a) is the postal receipt and postal acknowledgment card.
10. Exts A1 proves that on 17-10-2020 the complainant purchased a ONE PLUS NORD 5G Moblile hand set through the first opposite party paying Rs.27,999/-. The second opposite party is the seller. The product is having one year warranty for device and 6 months warranty for the in-box accessories including batteries from the date of purchase. PW 1 has given evidence that the device showed complaints in August 2021 and he immediately approached the service centre at Kozhikode on 10-08-2021. But they refused to attend the complaint stating that approval was not given by the seller. Even after the issuance of Exts A2 and A3 lawyer notice, no positive action was taken by the opposite parties to redress the grievance of the complainant. They have not even responded to the notice.
11. The evidence of PW 1 stands unchallenged. The opposite parties remained absent and they have not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant. The case of the complainant stands proved through the testimony of PW 1 and Exts A1 to A3 and MO 1. The act of the opposite parties in declining the genuine request made by the complainant to get the product repaired during the warranty period and not assisting him to solve the issue amounts to gross deficiency of service. The device is now worthless as far as the complainant is concerned. He is entitled to get refund of the price. Besides, he was put to severe hardship, mental agony and inconvenience due to the indifferent attitude and conduct of the opposite parties. He is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.5000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.3000/- as cost of the proceedings.
12. Point No.2. : In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a). CC.219/2021 is allowed in part.
b). The opposites parties are hereby directed to refund Rs.27,999/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine only) to the complainant, being the price of the device.
c). The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered.
d). The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
e). The payment as aforestated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs.27,999/-shall carry an interest of 6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.
f). On such payment, the opposite parties can collect MO 1 from this Commission.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 23th day of February, 2023.
Date of Filing: 14/12/2021.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Copy of the invoice dated 17-10-2020.
Ext. A2 – Copy of the lawyer notice dated 13-09-2021.
Ext. A3 – Copy of the lawyer notice dated 14-10-2021.
Ext. A3 (a) – Postal receipt and postal acknowledgement card.
Material Object
MO 1 – Mobile handset
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 Ranjith G (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/ By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
