Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/296/2020

Sreevarhan B G - Complainant(s)

Versus

Darshita Asiana (P)ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Jose J J

08 Sep 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN                : PRESIDENT

SMT.PREETHA G NAIR            : MEMBER

SRI.VIJU.V.R                           : MEMBER

CC.NO.296/2020  (Filed on 28.12.2020)

ORDER DATED : 08.09.2021

 

COMPLAINANTS

1. Sreevarhan.B.G, S/o.R.Babu,

Pin – 695572

Thiruvananthapuram (Dist), Kerala

2. R.Babu, S/o.Raghavan Pillai,

Pin – 695572, Thiruvananthapuram (Dist), Kerala

                             (By Adv.Jose.J.J)

                                                VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. Darshita Asiana Pvt Ltd, Anjanaya Infrastructure Project No.

38&39, Soukya Road, Kanchanakanahalli, Hoskote Taluk,

Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, Karnataka – 690067

Rep.by its Managing Director

2. Revea Tech Services, 205, 1^st Floor, Annas Arcade, Spencer,

Jun, M.G.Road, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala – 690067

Rep.by its,Seema Nelson

 

                                 ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN      : PRESIDENT

                1. This complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

               2. The complainants case in short is that the first complainant purchased new MI mobile for second complainant. The second complainant is the father of first complainant. The complainants bought a mobile phone Redmi 7 3GB+32 GB as per the invoice date 12/05/2019 by online sales by paying Rs.8,998/- (Rupees Eight thousand Nine hundred and Ninety Eight only) in an offer period. The above product became defective in the beginning of Lockdown period of Covid-19, in the first week of March and as there was no means to approach the service centre since all shops were closed and no transport facilities available. By the beginning of May 2020 the petitioner tried to approach the service provider but they rejected the request and at last on 23^rd of May presents the phone in person. At that date they don’t accepted the material for repair. After repeated contacts they allotted token for 2^nd June 2020, No.139313 at Xiomi Service Centre, Spencer Junction, the second opposite party. The petitioner presented the mobile phone at the service centre and after examination received a service order with the defect only of bulging of battery. After 2 ½ hours the service provider demanded to remit Rs.6000/- for service charges. The petitioner argued that while submitting the phone the defect was only bulging of battery and was ready to pay. But the demanded amount was high and the defect occurred during the warranty period. The service centre not only returned the phone but also the Jio Sim No.7306338179 inserted in the mobile, since the defect they noted only bulging of battery. The complainant repeatedly argued and requested, but everything was in vein. The callous and wanton behaviours of the service centre resulted in irreparable mental agony and untold hardships. The petitioner was suffering for months since the phone was defective in the lockdown period. After this incident the request of the consumer by phone and the advocate notice, were neglected by the Opposite Parties.  Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainants approached this Commission for redressing their grievances.

 

               3. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties to appear before this Commission on 03.02.2021. The notice issued to the first opposite party was to returned with an endorsement “refused”. As the first opposite party refused to accept the notice, the service of notice as against first opposite party is complete. Notice issued to second opposite party was served and there was no representation from the side of second opposite party on the date fixed for their appearance before this Commission. As both opposite parties were absent before this Commission on the date fixed for their appearance, they were called absent and set ex parte.

 

               4. The evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit filed by the second complainant and Exts.A1 to A4 on the side of the complainants. The opposite parties neither appeared nor filed version or adduced any oral or documentary evidence.

Issues to be considered

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed in the complaint?
3. If so what is the relief and costs?

 

              5. Issue numbers 1 & 2 are considered together for the sake of convenience.  To prove of the case of the complainants, the second complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A4 marked. By producing affidavit and Ext.A1 to A4 the complainants have established their case in the absence of any evidence from the side of the opposite parties.  On perusal of affidavit and documents Exs.A1to A4 produced by the complainant, we find that the complainants have succeeded in establishing their case. We also find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. From the evidence before this Commission, we find that the complainants have suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainants for the mental agony and financial loss caused due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Issue numbers 1 & 2 are found in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.

 

              In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The Opposite Parties are hereby directed to refund a sum of Rs.8998/- to the complainants and pay a sum of Rs.15.000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,500/- as cost of this proceedings within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order failing which, the amount except cost shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum the date of this order till realisation or remittance.

 

    A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 8^th day of September 2021.

                                                                                                                                                                                     Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN   : PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                                                                                                                      Sd/-

PREETHA G NAIR   : MEMBER

 

                                                                                                                                                                                          Sd/-

VIJU.V.R   : MEMBER

be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

CC.NO.296/2020

Complainant’s witness            - NIL

Complainant’s documents    

Ext.A1                                      - True copy of the service order         

Ext.A2                                      - True copy of the tax invoice bill

Ext.A3                                      - True copy of Advocate notice

Ext.A4                                      - Original Postal receipts

Opposite party’s witness                   - NIL

Opposite party’s documents    - NIL

 

Court Exhibits                         - NIL

 

                                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                                 PRESIDENT