SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

     This is a  complaint filed by the complainant  U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the OP’s jointly and severally liable to  refund the value of mobile phone Rs.55,999/- along with  compensation for mental agony of the complainant Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation  of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for the  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of OP’s.

  The brief of the complaint :

     The complainant is working as a college teacher and for her teaching profession she purchased a mobile phone XIAOMI-12 PRO(8/256 GB) IEMI No.863690054654474, invoice bill 5585 worth Rs.55,999/- from 3^rd OP on 8/12/2022.  On 8/12/2022 itself the phone became defective, the heat measurement is very high and the complainant is not in a position to use the mobile phone.  Immediately on 9/12/2022 the complainant approached  3^rd OP.  Then 3^rd OP informed  the complainant that  4^th OP is the authorized  service centre and the complainant entrusted the mobile phone to 4^th OP.  But the 4^th OP is not rectified the defect of the mobile phone, ie, within the warranty period.  The complainant states that 4^th OP, the service centre noted the defect in the mobile phone and several times this 4^th OP requested the complainant to inspect the mobile phone in their service centre.   The act of 4^th  OP the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  As per the terms  of warranty of the mobile phone the  OP’s are liable to repair the mobile phone at free of cost and return without delay.  But they failed to do .  The complainant is working as a college teacher  and she had some difficulties for non working of this mobile phone.  She purchased this costly mobile phone only for her teaching profession.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s.  Hence the complaint.

           After filing this complaint, notice  issued to all OP’s . All OP’s received the notice and not appeared before the commission and not filed the version also.   The commission had to  hold that the OP’s have  no  version as such this case came to be proceed against the  OP’s  as set  exparte.

    Even though the opposite parties have remained ex-parte it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by them against the OP’s.  Hence the complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents.   Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce her affidavit along with 7 documents  marking them as  Exts.A1 to A7 and the mobile phone marked as MO1.  The complainant  was examined as PW1.   So the opposite parties remain absent in this case.  At the end the Commission heard the case on merit.

    Let us have a clear glance at the relevant documents of the complainant.  Ext.A1 is the product manual,  Ext.A2 is the  warranty, Ext.A3 is the product specification record, Ext.A4  is the service record, Ext.A5 is the sales invoice, Ext.A6 is the  service order and Ext.A7 is the heat measurement image.  Mo1 is the mobile phone.  It clearly shows in  Ext.A5 that the  complainant had purchased the mobile phone on 8/12/2022 for an amount of Rs.55,999/-.  In Exts.A4&A6 clearly shows that the complainant entrusted the phone  to 4^th OP and the  fault description noted that  “ heating  while  app running”.  The repair  method noted that  pending .  In Ext.A7 the heat measurement image noted that the temperature 51.0*, voltage 3721 MV.  At the time of offering to sell the mobile phone the OP’s promised that they will provide prompt service and necessary repair  in case of  any complaint.  But in this case the OP’s are failed to give proper service to the complainant.  Then the  complainant  is constrained to purchase another mobile phone for  her professional use.  On the  1^st day of  purchase  of the mobile phone became defective.  So the complainant caused much mental strain, tension and agony.  So the OPs bound to repair the mobile phone on free of cost within the warranty period.  There is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of  opposite parties.  Under this circumstances we are of the considered view that the OP’s are directly bound to redressal  the grievance caused to the complainant. So the complainant is  entitled to get the value of mobile phone  from the OPs.  So the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the  value of mobile phone Rs.55,999/- to the complainant  along with Rs.7,000/- as compensation for mental agony of the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost .

            In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing  the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to refund the  value of mobile phone Rs.55,999/- to the complainant  along with Rs.7,000/- as compensation for mental agony of the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order.  In default, the amount of Rs.55,999/- carries interest@ 9% per annum  from the date of order till realization , failing which the   complainant is  at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019. After the said proceedings the opposite parties are at liberty to  take back the mobile phone before the commission.

Exts:

A1- Product manual

A2-Warranty

A3-Product specification record

A4-Sales record

A5-Sales invoice

A6-Service order

A7-Heat measurement image

MO1-Mobile phone

PW1-Fathima.C- complainant.

Sd/                                                             Sd/                                                   Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR