DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 28th day of September, 2022
Filed on: 13/08/2018
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
CC.No. 334/2018
Between
COMPLAINANT
Ranju T.R., S/o. T.T. Reghu, Thattamveettil House, Kumbalangi P.O., Pin 682007.
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1. COOLPAD COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD. Shop No. A1&A2, Plot No, 109, Tejas Apartment, Sector – 44, Nerul Seawood, New Mumbai 400706
2. REGENERSIS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., (A CTDICompany) Door No. 55/2215A, 2nd Floor, Melka Tower, Cheruparambath Road, Kadavanthara, Kochi 682020
O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President.
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The Complaint was filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. On 28 5 2018, the complainant purchased a mobile phone (Coolpad Cool -1) from the first opposite party through Amazon online site and within a month the mobile display became defective. The complainant had approached the second opposite party for service of the mobile phone. The complainant has not received mobile service till today. Even though the complainant contacted the service centre directly after taking leave from his work many times. The second opposite party was not ready to give a definite answer on the issue. The only reply from their side is that the spare parts of the mobile are not available. The complainant contacted the first opposite party via mobile phone and email but did not get a proper response from them. They only informed the complainant that it will take time to repair the mobile. The Complainant is seeking a refund and compensation from the opposite parties.
2) Notice
Notice was issued from the Commission to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and they did not appear before the commission despite receiving the notices and did not file their versions. Hence the opposite parties set ex-parte.
3. Evidence
The complainant had produced 4 documents before the commission.
1. Copy of the Aadhar card
2. Copy of the job sheet
3. Copies of the email communications.
4. Copy of Purchase Bill.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
I) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
II) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
III) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
IV) Costs of the proceedings if any?
Point No. I- The Complainant regarding the non-functioning of the flushing system supplied by the opposite parties. The Complainant is seeking a refund and compensation from the opposite parties. The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows. The complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the above case, the Complainant has produced 4 documents. The notice was issued to the opposite parties through registered post. The opposite parties had neither appeared nor filed their
version and hence set exparte.
On verification of the documents produced by the complainant and also the circumstance under which the complainant had explained the cause for the complaint, the Commission examined the possibilities therein in a very detailed manner examining all records and which reveals the following.
Document No 4 produced by the complainant was to show that the complainant had paid the amount for the purpose of purchasing the mobile phone from the opposite parties. Document No 3 shows that the complainant had sent letters through email to the opposite parties. These documents also show that the complainant had demanded the opposite party to pay back the cost of the mobile phone due to the lethargic attitude and laxity of the opposite parties. Document No 2 -copy of the job sheet- which affirmed that the complainant had approached the second opposite party for service of the mobile phone. The complainant’s claim against the opposite parties remains unchallenged and the complainant is successful in proving a transaction between the complainant and the Opposite Parties and the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment at the hands of the opposite parties. Even though the opposite parties were given ample opportunity to approach and present their side before the Commission they had not turned up and made any defence. In the absence of any contra evidences the Commission do not have any reason to disbelieve the contents in the complaint. Commission therefore issues the following order.
As a result, we direct as follows;
1. The opposite parties shall refund the complainant an amount of Rs.17,500/- (Rupees seventeen thousand five hundred only)to the complainant.
2. The opposite parties shall pay the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation for the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment at the hands of the opposite parties.
The Opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 28th day of September, 2022.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/- V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar.
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 334/2018
Order Date: 28/09/2022
