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 to pay the value of  mobile phone Rs. 21,499/- and the policy of complete mobile  protection for  one year  Rs.1549/- along  with  Rs.10,000/-  as compensation    for mental agony of the complainant for the deficiency of service  and unfair trade practice  on  their  part.

The brief  of the complaint:

       The complainant had purchased a mobile phone PocoX2(Phomix Red,256GB) booked on 16/9/2020 for an amount of Rs.21,499/-.  He also paid an amount of Rs.1549/- for complete mobile protection  one year  Flipkart protect. At the time of ordering the product the complainant’s residential place is completely locked down due to Corona pandemic.  So the complainant  had ordered the mobile phone through his fried’s (Safwan.P)  address, then the complainant received the mobile phone on 18/9/2020.  He had purchased the  mobile phone only for his educational purpose. He paid the amount through his Federal bank’s account.  After the purchase of 2 months the phone became defective and he noticed that black dots nearby the camera of the phone .  Then the complainant had made a complaint to 1^st OP.  But the1st OP not respond.  But thereafter the defects developed more and after 7 months the complainant approached  MI service centre.  The service centre informed the complainant that the battery of the phone was seen to be defective and for replacing the same it would cost  Rs.2800/- but the complainant  had not repair the phone by paying the amount since the mobile phone has got guarantee and warranty. Then the  complainant registered a complaint and on 3/8/2021 the  Blue Dart  company hand over the phone to Jeeves company.  On 11/8/2021 the 3^rd OP informed the complainant that the mobile phone has got accidental damages  and  the  company sent a photo attached with a mail showing more damage than the mobile phone of the complainant.  Thereafter 3^rd OP returned  the mobile  phone to complainant without curing the defect. Moreover the complainant stated that the OP’s assure that if there is any defect caused to the  mobile phone within the warranty period the OP’s 1& 3 either to repair  the set until warranty or replace another set.  So the OP’s are failed to do so.  So there is deficiency of service on the part of OP’s.   Hence the complaint.

       After filing the complaint  notice issued to all OP’s.  Ops 1&2 received the  notice and  entered before the commission and filed their written version .  3^rd OP not appeared  before the commission and  not filed version, 3^rd OP is  set exparte. 1^st OP contended that Flipkart internet pvt. Ltd is a company only act as an intermediary through web interface www.flipkart.com and provides a medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale and sell their products to the users of the flipkart platform.  Savadika Retail  Pvt.Ltd is the seller in this case.  He also made as necessary party.  This OP informed that nowhere at fault as this OP does not receive the amount nor make any refund also.  This OP informed that the  refund is  already made in favour of the  complainant by the seller.  This OP neither offers nor involve in any refund facility to the end buyers of the product.   So the contention of OP.NO.1 is that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice  and the complaint may be dismissed.

    2^nd OP contended that a consignment was transmitted through this OP  Airway bill No.89225805701 dtd.3/8/2021.  On instructions of the shipper M/s FI solution into with whom 2^nd OP entered into a special contract dtd.1/6/2020.  Even before the expected delivery date 6/8/2021.  This OP had delivered the consignment to the addressee on 5/8/2021 at 10.52 hours.  During this consignment it was handed by this OP with utmost care and diligence  and there were no adverse remarks during delivery of the shipment.  The complainant has no case against 2^nd OP that the mobile phone had sustained any defect during the transmission of the same.  So there is no  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against this  2^nd OP and the complaint may be dismissed.

      On the basis  of the rival contentions by the pleadings the  following  issues  were framed for consideration.

1. Whether there is  any deficiency of service   on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3. Relief and cost.

     The evidence on merit of the oral testimony of PW1 and  Exts. A1 to A7 series and MO1 were marked .  From the side of  OP’s no oral  or documentary evidence produced.

Issue No.1: 

                The  Complainant  adduced evidence before the commission by submitting  his chief affidavit in lieu of  his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the  contentions in the version.    The documents  Exts.A1 to A7 (series)  marked on his  part to substantiate his case.  According to the complainant the phone was booked on16/9/2020 and received the mobile phone on 18/9/2020 through his fried Safwan.P.  At the time of ordering the mobile phone the complainant’s residential  places are completely closed due to Corona pandemic.  He had purchased the mobile phone only for his online classes.  According to complainant the Ext.A1 is the tax invoice dtd.16/9/2020 for an amount of Rs.21,499/- to 1^st OP.  In Ext.A2 is the service record dtd 28/7/2021 and the service type noted  fault description “battery cover paint peeling off”.  In Ext.A3 is the tax invoice for an amount of Rs.1549/- dtd. 16/9/2020 in complete  mobile protection one year by Flipkart protect to 3^rd OP .  In Ext.A4 is the service record dtd.20/8/2021 and fault description battery cover deformation or scratched.  In Ext.A5 is  bank statement of complainant to shows that he had  paid an amount of Rs.21550/- to 1^st OP’s agent’s account transfer ID S1766683.  Et.A6 is the e-mail communication  from complainant and 3^rd OP.  In Ext.A7 series is the photographs(7 in Nos.) to show that the mobile phone is in defective condition.  In the evidence of PW1 deposed  before the commission  that “ Ext.A1 പ്രകാരം   Savadika ആണ്  seller   എന്നു പറയുന്നു .  അവരെ നിങ്ങൾ എന്തുകൊണ്ട് കക്ഷി ചേർത്തിട്ടില്ല ഞാൻ Flipkart   ൽ  നിന്നാണ് വാങ്ങിയത്.  MO1   ന്ർറെ  payment നടത്തിയത് ഞാനാണ്. Ext.A5 പ്രകാരം Flipkart ന് പണം അയച്ചതായി കാണില്ല? Flipkart ന്ർറെ agent നാണ് പണം കൊടുത്തത്. Moreover, he stated that എന്ർറെ വീടിന്ർറെ അടുക്കൽ corona കാരണം delivery ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നില്ല.  The  cross examination by 2^nd OP the complainant stated that 2^nd OP   വിന് ഞാൻ  പണംകൊടുക്കുകയോ എന്തെങ്കിലും സേവനം  വാങ്ങുകയോ ചെയ്തിട്ടില്ല.  2^nd OP  നഷ്ടപരിഹാരം  തരണമെന്ന   ആവശ്യം എനിക്കില്ല, Moreover the complainant produced the mobile phone(MO1) before the commission.  After the purchase of  2 months the mobile phone became defective.  But the OP’s are not ready to  cure the defect within the  warranty period.  Except the version of  OP s 1&2 no evidence or documents produced by the OPs to prove their defense.   So we hold that the  act of  OP’s the complainant  caused much mental agony and financial loss.   So there is  deficiency of service  and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties 1&3.  Hence the issue No.1 found in favour of the complainant and  answered accordingly.

Issue Nos.2&3:

        As discussed above the OPs 1&3 are not ready to replace the mobile phone to the complainant.  The complainant produced Exts.A1&A3 invoice which  clearly shows that PW1 paid Rs.21,499/- as the  value of mobile phone and Rs.1549/- as the complete mobile protection  one year by Flikart protect.  So the OP’s are directly   bound  to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant .  Therefore we hold that the 1^st OP is liable to refund the value of mobile phone Rs.21,499/- to the complainant and 3^rd opposite party is liable to refund Rs.1549/- in complete mobile protection charge to the complainant along  with opposite parties 1&3 are  jointly and severally liable to  pay Rs.4000/- as compensation for mental agony  of the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost. Thus the issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered. 

      In the result the complaint is allowed in part  directing the 1^st  opposite party  to refund Rs. 21,499/- the value of mobile phone  to the complainant and 3^rd opposite party is direct to refund Rs.1549/- the complete mobile protection charge to the complainant along  with opposite parties 1&3 are  jointly and severally liable to  pay Rs.4000/- 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. 21,499/- carries 9% interest 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 1&3 are at liberty to take back the mobile phone before the commission. 

Exts:

A1- Tax invoice

A2-Service record

A3-Tax invoice(mobile protection bill)

A4-Servie record

A5-Account statement

A6- E mail 12 Nos.

A7-Photographs

MO1- Mobile phone

PW1-Muhammed Ukkash- Complainant

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR