IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE    5^th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 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.19/2020

Rahul K.S.,

Mulayakkattil veedu,

Yeroor P.O, Yeroor, Kollam 691312.                      :           Complainant

V/s

1.   Darshita Aashiyana Pvt.Ltd.No.1/B,

                 Indo Space Logistics Park,

                 Puduvoyal Durainallur Village,

                 Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvalluvar,

                   Tamil Nadu-601206.

2.       DTDC Express Limited,

                    Anchal Branch, Anchal P.O.,                                          : Opposite parties

                     Anchal, Kollam 691 306.

                     (By Adv.Binu Mathew)

ORDER

Smt.Sandhya Rani, B.Sc, 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:-

          On 25.10.2019 the complainant has ordered a Redmi Note 8 (Neptune Blue, 4GB RAM, 64GB storage) mobile phone having price Rs.9,998/- through Amazon mobile phone site and he has obtained the same on 29.10.2019 in a sealed packet sent by 1^st opposite party Darshita Aashiyana Pvt.Ltd., registered seller of Amazon.in.  But when the sealed packet was opened he could realize that the touch screen of the mobile phone not in a working condition.  Thereafter as per the direction received from Amazon company, the complainant entrusted the defective phone with 2^nd opposite party DTDC Express Ltd. courier service on 11.11.2019 and the 1^st opposite party seller received the defective phone on 14.11.2019.  In the absence of any response from 1^st opposite party, the complainant contacted with the Amazon and they have informed the complainant that the 1^st opposite party has received only a dummy mobile phone so they are not willing either to replace or to refund the price of subject matter mobile phone.  The 1^st opposite party alleging that during the transit of mobile phone from the complainant to 1^st opposite party the original phone was replaced with a dummy phone by somebody but the 2^nd opposite party courier company says that they have handed over mobile phone with 1^st opposite party  seller in a sealed packet with proper care and caution.  The complainant is a newspaper boy belongs to a poor family who was found of that particular mobile phone that is why he has spent that much money for purchasing the same which caused much mental agony apart from financial loss.  The above mentioned acts experienced from the part of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice because the opposite parties are legally bound either to repay the price of the mobile phone or replace with a new one of the same price and specifications.  In the circumstance the complainant claims Rs.12,500/- by way of compensation and Rs.2,500/- as costs of the proceedings.  Hence the complaint.

          Though notice issued was accepted by the opposite parties 1 and 2, they didn’t appear before this commission,  hence the opposite parties 1 and 2 were set exparte on 08.11.2021.

          Complainant filed chief affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 to A5 documents.  Heard the complainant and perused the records.  Ext.A1 is the Tax Invoice/Bill of Supply/Cash Memo dated 25.10.2019 for Rs.9,998/- issued by 1^st opposite party Darshita Aashiyana Private Limited.  Ext.A2 is copy of labels Ext.A3 Receipt issued by 2^nd opposite party, Courier services.  Ext.A4 is the shipment tracking history, Ext.A5 is the photographs of sealed package.

          The unchallenged averments coupled with Ext.A1 to A5 documents would establish prima facie that the complainant had purchased a Redmi Note 8  (Neptune Blue, 4GB RAM, 64GB storage) mobile phone for Rs.9,998/- from 1^st opposite party but he could not use the same because its touch screen was defective since its purchase.

          Ext.A2 to A5 would establish that the complainant has returned the defective mobile phone to 1^st opposite party seller via 2^nd opposite party courier service by complying all the instructions needed in mailing a packet item as envisaged in Ext.A2 document and the same was received by 1^st opposite party on 14.11.2019.  But the 1^st opposite party has failed either to refund the price of the defective mobile phone or to replace the same with another mobile phone in working condition having same price and specifications.

          It is pertinent to note that being a newspaper boy it was hard for the complainant to spend Rs.9,998/- for getting the subject matter mobile phone, but he has purchased the same as he was too much fond the mobile phone having the above specifications.  But due to the malfunctioning of its display he could not even open the device which caused much mental agony apart from financial loss to him.

          On evaluating the entire materials available on record it is clear that the mobile phone purchased from 1^st opposite party was found defective.  However the opposite parties have failed either to refund the value of the mobile phone Rs.9,998/- or to replace the same with a defect free mobile phone having same price and specifications.  The opposite parties are under an obligation to make mobile phone in perfect working condition at least for a period of 12 months.  But the opposite parties have failed to do so.  The above mentioned acts on the part of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused mental agony as well as financial loss to the complainant.  Therefore the complainant is entitled to get replaced a new mobile phone of the same nature and having the same specification or to get refund of the amount spent by him to purchase the said phone.

          In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms:-

1. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to substitute a brand new mobile phone of the same value and specifications or to repay its price of Rs.9,998/- to the complainant.
2. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and financial loss caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
3.  The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of the proceedings to the complainant.
4. The opposite parties are directed to comply with the 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 Rs.12,998/- along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of the complaint till the realization and cost Rs.2,000/- from the opposite parties  No.1 & 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

5^th day of  September 2022.  

          S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-

                                                E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-

                                                                       STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                                                    Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.A1            : Tax Invoice/Bill of Supply/Cash Memo dated 25.10.2019

Ext.A2            : Copy of labels

Ext.A3            : Receipt issued by 2^nd opposite party, Courier services

Ext.A4            : The shipment tracking history

Ext.A5             : The photographs of sealed package

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil