IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE   1^st   DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

Present: -        Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

            Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member

         Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

    CC.No.124/2021

Ranibabu, W/o Renjilal,

Nellikkattuvila Veedu,

S.N.Puram, Pavithreswaram,

Puthoor, Kollam 691507.                                              :           Complainant

(By Adv.K.Sugunan)

V/s

1.     C.E.O.,

                  REALME Mobile Telecommunications (India) Pvt.Ltd.,

S               REI, Level 5, Maruti Udyog Sector 18,

                  Plot 14-A, Anath Road, Gurgaon,

            Haryana-122008.

2.    C.E.O.,

            Flipkart Internet Pvt.Ltd.,

                  Vaishnavi Summot, No.6/B,                                            :           Opposite parties

            7^th Main,80 Feet Road,3rd Block

                  Koramangala, Bangalore 560034.

ORDER

Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

            This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

            The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

            The complainant has ordered Realme 7 pro (Sun Kissed Leather, 128 GB) mobile on 15.12.2020 through the 2^nd opposite party for Rs.21,999/-.  The amount was paid through debit card.  The order Id No.is OD120486890179428000.  The complainant had also paid Rs.499/- as complete mobile protection 1 year by Flipkart Protect.  The authorized delivery boy of the 2^nd opposite party delivered the mobile phone on 18.12.2020.  At the time of delivered two receipts bearing invoice Nos.FAD5992100029033 and EAAAAB-05652469 are also given.  The 2^nd one is insurance coverage receipt.  As per the instruction in the manual complainant had charged the mobile phone but it was not in a working condition.  The complainant had registered a written request to the 2^nd opposite party he received the written request but there was no progress.  The complainant has also informed this problem and requested to repay the amount to the 1^st opposite party.  But they were not replied to the said demand.  The complainant had intimated through emails to different offices of the opposite parties, but there was no response.  The opposite parties made no efforts to solve the problems.  The mobile phone has a brand warranty for a period of one year and 1 year complete mobile protection.

            There is gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  After receiving the money from the complainant, the opposite parties have failed to perform their obligation.  Due to the negligent acts of the opposite parties the complainant had suffered loss and injury due to deprivation, harassment, mental agony and loss of business achievements, for which she is entitled to compensation.  The opposite parties had not complied with the terms of the warranty and have acted extremely negligently in attending to the complaint of the complainant and is therefore liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and injury caused to hi.  Hence the complaint.

            Though notice was issued to the opposite parties they failed to appear before the commission nor made any representation hence they were set exparte.  Complainant filed proof affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 and A2 documents.  Heard the complainant in person and per used the records.  Ext.A1 is the tax invoice dated 15.12.2020 for Rs.21,999/-.  Ext.A2 is the tax invoice for insurance coverage (protection).

            The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.A1 and A2 documents would establish prima facie that that complainant had purchased a Realme 7 pro (Sun Kissed Leather, 128 GB) mobile on 15.12.2020.  It is clear from the Ext.A2 insurance coverage receipt explaining about the protection of one year for the said mobile phone.  In Ext.A2 it is specifically mentioned that there is one year protection for the Realme 7 pro (Sun Kissed Leather, 128 GB) purchased from the complainant.  The mobile showed the complainant from the very beginning of the purchase when the complainant charged the mobile as per instructed in the manual it was not in a working condition.  However the complainant had intimated through email to the different offices of the both opposite parties there was no response.  The opposite parties had not taken any efforts to solve the problems of the mobile phone.  The mobile phone has brand warranty for a period of one year and 1 year complete mobile protection and that there is a full warranty provided for the mobile phone from the date of purchase by the Ext.A2 insurance protection receipt.

On evaluating the entire materials available on record it is clear that the mobile phone Realme 7 pro (Sun Kissed Leather, 128 GB) purchased from the opposite parties has become defective from the very beginning itself.  The opposite parties are under obligation to keep the mobile phone in working condition at least for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase by the complainant but they failed to do so.  The opposite parties have acted in most negligent manner while dealing with the grievance of the complainant and thereby the complainant has suffered loss and mental agony.  The complainant had knocked the doors of the opposite parties to solve the problem of his mobile phone.  It is also clear from the materials available on record that as the opposite parties have not set right the defect of the mobile phone nor replaced the same though it clear that the defect sustained during the warranty period and one year insurance protection is available.  Hence the complainant has sustained mental agony apart from financial loss.  In the circumstances opposite parties No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to replace the defective mobile phone or to return its price shown in Ext.A1 invoice and also liable to pay reasonable compensation and costs to the complainant. 

            In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms.

1. Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are directed to substitute a brand new mobile of the same value and specifications to the complainant or to return its price of Rs.21,999/- and also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2.
2. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of the proceedings.
3. Opposite parties are directed to comply with above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to realize the amount of Rs.26,999/- along with  interest @  9 % p.a. from the date of complaint till realization along with costs Rs.2,000/-from opposite parties No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally and  from their assets.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 1^st   day of  October 2022.

                                                            STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

    E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-

                                                  S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-

      Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                                                      Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.A1              : The tax invoice dated 15.12.2020 for Rs.21,999/-. 

Ext.A2            : The tax invoice for insurance coverage (protection).

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil