IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 28th day of December, 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No. 199/2022 (Filed on 26/09/2022)
Complainant : Sanjay.S. Nair,
Pulickaparambil House,
Veliyannoor P.O,
Puthuvely,
Kottayam – 686 636.
Vs.
Opposite party : The Proprietor,
Apple Smart Phone Cafe,
Thodupuzha Easst P.O,
Mangattukavala,
Idukki – 685 585.
(By Advs: Bobby John K.A &
Arjun Sai Krishnan)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The brief of the complaint is as follows :
The complainant had given his Apple I Phone 8 to the opposite party for repair on 03/09/2022. The phone was given to change the broken display and the battery. The opposite party demanded Rs.8,000/- for changing the parts with the original spare parts and offered 6 months warranty for the service. The opposite party returned the phone after repair. When the phone was charged and switch on the next day, it was found that the display was very low, the battery was weak and the sensor near the display was not working.
The matter was intimated to the opposite party over phone. The opposite party agreed to do the repair work of the phone and the complainant had given the phone to the opposite party on 09/09/2022. The complainant received the phone on 14/09/2022 after the service. The opposite party instructed to charge the battery for three hours before use, accordingly the complainant charged the phone and found that the display was very low and the sensor was not working. On intimation of this complaint to the opposite party, they informed that the replaced spare parts were not the original spare parts and the original spare parts were not available in the market.
This act of the opposite party had caused much mental agony and hardships to the complainant. The act of the opposite party is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was served to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed their version.
In the version, the opposite party admits that they have received the Apple I Phone 8 from complainant for repair on 03/09/2022.The phone had been given for replacing the broken display and the complainant paid Rs.8,000/- as service charge. The opposite party had replaced the battery and display of the phone. The replaced spare parts were of “I phix” company made and the phone was returned to the complainant. The complainant had used the mobile phone for 10 days after the repair. The complainant raised the complaint again and the opposite party assured to do the repair under warranty. But the complainant was reluctant to give the phone for repair and insisted for the refund of the cost of repair. All the other allegations are false and denied. The opposite party is ready and willing to do the repair of the mobile phone. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits A1 to A4. Even though the opposite party appeared and filed their version, they failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence to defend their case.
On the basis of the complaint and version of the opposite party, we would like to consider the following points :
(1) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ?
(2) If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
POINTS 1 & 2 :-
On going through the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant had given an Apple I Phone 8 to the opposite party for repair on 03/09/2022. It is clear from Ext.A1 that the complainant had paid Rs.8,000/- as service charge to the opposite party on 03/09/2022. Ext.A2 is the ELS Report issued by the opposite party on 03/09/2022 to the complainant for the repair of the I Phone with IMEI No. 244867.
Ext.A3 is the ELS report issued by the opposite party on 09/09/2022 for I Phone with IMEI No.244867 with problem of display complaint, battery recharge not lasting, low brightness. Ext.A4 is the remarks written on the reverse side of Ext.A3 report stating that 6 months warranty 3/9/22, Battery + display original .
It is pertinent to note that neither in Ext.A2 nor in Ext.A3 ELS reports the opposite party had given undertaking that the original spare parts of I Phone company will be used for the repair works. More over the complainant does not have a case that the opposite party claimed to be an authorized service centre of I Phone. Hence it is clear that the complainant had given the I Phone to the opposite party for repair work with the knowledge that they are not an authorized service centre of the I Phone.
Hence the allegation that the opposite party failed to replace the spare parts with the original I Phone spare parts is not sustainable. But it is evident that the mobile phone repaired by the opposite party on 03/09/2022 became defective on 09/09/2022 and again found to be defective after this service.
This clearly shows that the repair work done by the opposite party was defective. The opposite party failed to do the repair work of the mobile phone to a perfect working condition, and thereby the opposite party failed to render the promised service to the complainant. This act on the part of the opposite party is deficiency in service and the complaint is to be allowed. We allow the complaint and pass the following order :
(1) The opposite party is directed to give 50 % of the fee charged for the service i.e. Rs 4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) to the complainant for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
(2) The opposite party is directed to give Rs 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony and hardships of the complainant along with cost of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only).
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the amounts shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realisation.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of December, 2023
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Exhibit from the side of the Complainant :
A1 - Receipt dated 3/09/2022 for Rs.8,000/- received through
swiping machine by the opposite party
A2 - Job Sheet(ELS Report) dated 03/09/2022 issued by the
opposite party
A3 - Job Sheet(ELS Report) dated 09/09/2022 issued by the
opposite party
A4 - Reverse side of Ext.A3 showing remarks - 6 months warranty
3/9/22 Battery + Display original
Exhibit from the side of Opposite party :
Nil.
By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
