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 opposite parties   to pay the value of the phone for Rs.14,999/- along with  compensation and cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant   for  the deficiency of service on their part.

  The case of the complainant in brief :

      The complainant ordered Redmi note 9 pro mobile phone on 8/7/2021.  Thereafter on 16/7/2021 the 1^st OP had delivered the phone to complainant and paid Rs.14,999/- to 1^st OP.  On 20/7/2021 the complainant approached  mobile shop and inserted new sim card to the mobile phone.  But the mobile phone not activated .  Then the complainant informed the matter to 1^st OP and 2^nd OP and send complaint to Ops 1&2 also.  As per the direction of 2^nd Op’s customer care the updation also taken.  Immediately after the  complaint complainant informed the matter to Ops 1&2 no steps to cure the defects taken by the OP’s side.  Then the complainant approached 3^rd OP to enquire the defects of the mobile phone.  3^rd OP states that the panboard not effectively working and the phone earlier used in the month of  18/2/2021 itself.  Then the complainant informed the matter to OP’s customer care.  But Ops 1&2 states that there is no provision to replace or refund the value of mobile phone.  The complainant purchased the mobile phone for the purpose  and use of children’s online classes only.  But the opposite parties are not ready to replace a new mobile phone.  The act of the opposite parties 1&2 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&2.  Hence the complaint.

      After filing the complaint, notice  issued to  opposite parties.  The opposite parties   received the  notice and not  appeared  before the Commission and not  filed any  version.  The Commission had to hold that the  opposite parties  have no version as such in  this case came to be proceed against the  opposite parties as  exparte.

    Even though the opposite parties have remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by him against the  opposite parties.  Hence the  complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of  affidavit and  documents.   Accordingly the complainant has chosen to  produce his affidavit along with one document and mobile phone marking them as Ext.A1 and MO1 and the  complainant was examined as PW1.  So the  opposite parties remain absent in this case.  At the end the commission  heard the case on merit.

       Let  us have a clear glance at the  relevant document on 8/7/2021 the mobile phone was ordered through online as per Ext.A1 invoice dtd 8/7/2021 and paid Rs.14,999/- to 1^st OP and received the mobile phone on 16/7/2021.   But after receiving the mobile phone the complainant understand that the phone was some manufacturing defect ie, the pan board not effectively working and the phone is used  earlier in the month of February 18^th 2021 itself.  The complainant demanded to replace the mobile phone or to return the value of mobile phone  Rs.14,999/-.  But the Ops1&2 not ready to replace the mobile phone  or to refund the value of Rs.14999/- to the complainant.  Moreover the complainant produced the Mo1 mobile phone before the commission.    So the opposite partis1&2 are  directly  bound  to redress the grievance caused to the complainant.  Therefore we hold that the  opposite parties 1&2  are jointly and severally  liable to pay the value of mobile phone Rs.14,999/- along with Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.   3^rd opposite party is an unnecessary party and liability of  3^rd opposite party is exonerated.   

               In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1&2  are jointly and severally  liable to pay the value of mobile phone Rs.14,999/- along with Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost to the complainant  within  30 days from the date of  receipt  of this order,   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 Ops 1&2 are at liberty to take back the MO1 before the commission.  3^rd opposite party is an unnecessary party and liability of  3^rd opposite party is exonerated  

Exts:

A1-  Cash bill

MO1- mobile phone

Sd/                                                                       Sd/                                                              Sd/ 

PRESIDENT                                               MEMBER                                                        MEMBER

Ravi Susha                      Molykutty Mathew.                            Sajeesh K.P

eva                                                  /Forwarded by Order/

                                                    SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT