Date of Filing : 09/12/2019

Date of Judgement : 24/09/2024

Smt. Monihar Begum, Hon’ble President in Charge.

BRIEF FACTS

This petition of complaint is filed U/Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by Sri Rabi Sankar Mitra alleging unfair trade practice against (i) Asus Technology Pvt Ltd. (ii) Compuage Infocom Ltd.

Case of complainant, in brief, is that the complainant was in search for a mobile set with high resolution mega pixel camera in rear and front side to present his son as a birthday gift. For which he had opted Asus Zenfone Max Pro MI(Model Asus XOOTD) (ZB601KL) Set worth Rs.11,999/-. Immediately the complainant placed an order on 04.08.2019 and the mobile set was delivered at the door step of complainant on 05.08.2019. In course of uses, the complainant observed some problems within few days of delivery using the said mobile set in the front and rear set camera pictures. The Rear Camera pictures when snapped is found to be yellowish tone when clicked with flash and front camera picture was coming blur keeping both the camera in auto mode. During deletion of photos, the deleted photos were coming back without being deleted. The complainant approached to the OP No.2 on 11.09.2019 to get the problems resolved and OP No.2 took custody of the said mobile phone for inspection on 11.09.2019.  The OP after inspection of the said mobile set replaced the front camera finding some defects and delivered the mobile set to the complainant on 21.09.2019. After the replacement of the front camera, the complainant did not observe any improvement in quality of pictures and the OP did not care to solve the problems. The complainant again approached the OP No.2 to settle all such problems for and on 24.09.2019. The OP No.2 took custody of the mobile set on 24.09.2019.  After finding some defects OP No. 2 replaced the rear camera and delivered it to the complainant on 26.09.2019 with remarks.  The complainant took delivery of the handset with remarks stated in the footnote of inspection sheet “not fully satisfied with the camera (both)” and being dejected with the service of the phone and duly harassed by the service provider, he lodged a complaint on 28.09.2019 before the National Consumer Help Line bearing Complaint ID-1633914 for redressal. The National Consumer Help Line suggested the complainant to send e-mail to the OP No.1 and after due compliance their suggestion, complainant received a mail on 10.10.2019. One Sr. Consumer Executive of OP No.1 assured the complainant that the problems will get effect once the complainant visited the authorized service center i.e. OP No.2.  OP No.2 took delivery of the mobile set for inspection on 14.10.2019 and they changed the mother board of the mobile phone to solve the problem and delivered the same one on 01.11.2019.  OP No.1 sold the said set having manufacturing and defrauded the complainant by changing the spare of a new set with a motive to pass the period of warranty. Even after replacement of aforesaid spares, OP No. 2 found some new symptoms contained with on LCD at multiple time one day while charging after being approached to the OP No. 2 fixed on 04.11.2019, OP No.2 took delivery of the said set on 04.11.2019 and since then the set is under the custody of OP.

Complainant served notice through mail on 24.10.2019 upon the OP No.1 to refund the purchase amount and also to compensate for harassment and for mental pain and agony. Complainant became totally tired on the attitude of the OPs. Thereafter complainant had no other alternative, lodged a complaint against the OPs before this Commission praying for refund the amount of Rs.11,999/- and Rs.20,000/- for compensation and Rs.15,000/- for litigation cost and such other relief(s).

Upon notice, OPs contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing all the allegations made out in the complaint petition as the complainant had dragged the OPs into unwanted litigation by filing a premature, false and frivolous complaint which is devoid of any merits. As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed and also denied allegation of unfair trade practice.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant filed (i) Xerox copy of Tax Invoice dtd 04.08.2019 of Rs.11,999/- (ii) Xerox copy of Order details (iii)  Xerox copy of documents of Asus Technology Pvt Ltd. (iv) Xerox copy of grievance application dated 28.09.2019 (v) Xerox copy of complainant’s letter to OP No.2 on 24.09.2024 (vi) Xerox copy of complaint before National Consumer Help Line dated 28.09.2019 (vii) Xerox copy of receipt letter of complainant dated 10.10.2019.

Complainant filed Affidavit-in-Chief to which OPs filed questionnaire and complainant filed affidavit in reply against this OP filed evidence to which complainant filed questionnaire and OP filed affidavit in reply. 

Whether the complainant is entitled to relief(s) as prayed for.

DECISION WITH REASONS

It is an admitted fact that complainant has prayed for refund of amount of Rs.11,999/-. In order to prove the allegation complainant had filed tax invoice dated 04.08.2019 which reveals that complainant paid Rs.11,999/- for purchasing the mobile handset and he could not use the handset for long time. OPs accepted the said amount and on 11.02.2020 they sent a letter through Speed Post informing complainant for refund of full invoice amount. 

On perusal of the written version, affidavit-in-chief and questionnaire it appears that OP No.1 simply had stated defects could be ascertained through test report after full inspection.  Admittedly, the handset which complainant purchased was within the warranty period and the complainant informed the service center on many occasions, which is clear from the record and also from the documents filed.

Accordingly, we are of the view that there are sufficient materials on behalf of the complainant to establish that he suffered at the hand of the OPs and OPs are liable to return the amount of Rs.11,999/- which they took from the complainant as price of the mobile handset.  They are also liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.8,000/-. 

Hence it is

          ORDERED

that CC No.642/2019 is allowed on contest against the OPs.

OPs are directed to refund Rs.11,999/- to the complainant within two months from the date of this order.

They are further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- for compensation and Rs.8000/- for litigation cost within the aforesaid period of two months from the date of this order.  In default the total amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.

Directed and corrected by me

         Member