Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/12/2022

A.Paramanandam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Galaxy Mobiles & Electronics,Rep by its Proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

25 Aug 2022

ORDER

 

                                                                   Complaint presented on : 07.01.2022

                                                                    Date of disposal            : 25.08.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT :  THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                                     : PRESIDENT

                                  TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.                          : MEMBER-I

                                  THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.12.2022

 

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 25^th  DAY OF AUGUST 2022

 

Mr. A. Paramanantham,

S/o. C.A. Rao,

No.680, 20^th Street,

Bakthavatchalam Colony,

Vyasarpadi, Chennai-39                                                 …..Complainant               

 

 ..Vs..

 

M/s. Galaxy Mobiles & Electronics,

Represented by its Proprietor,

63, Madhavaram High Road,

 

Chennai-600 011                                                           …. Opposite Party

 

 

Counsel for Complainant                   : Party in Person

 

Counsel for  opposite party                  : Ex-parte

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

THIRU. V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA, MEMBER-II

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prays to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of  Rs.3,00,000/-  for causing mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          According to complaint, the complainant has purchased Nokia Make 150 (2020) Model phone from the opposite party vide bill no. 673 dated 22.07.2021 for a sum of Rs.2500/-.  After purchase of the mobile, the display of the phone was fused and did not appear.  The complainant approached the opposite party explained the malfunctioning of the mobile phone and the opposite party demanded a sum of Rs.500/- towards repairs, Rs.300/- towards replacement of battery and another sum of Rs.100/- towards re-charging of the battery and the complainant had paid the same.  After repair, the phone was returned by opposite party promising that the phone would work properly.  The complainant alleged that even after repairs the phone was not functioning and it developed one after another repair and it became defunct, defective and deficient in nature.  The complainant is a regular user of mobile phone and because of these repairs, he lost his contacts and his local occupational works become prevented and thus causing undue losses, hardships besides mental tension and pain.  The opposite party not bothered about the hardships and thus directing to treat this phone as use and throw phone instrument instead of owing the responsibility of supply of defective phone.  The opposite party failed to replace with new phone and the complainant has sent a legal notice to opposite party on 06.12.2021, narrating the above said supply of defective phone and other problems faced.  The opposite party even after receipt of legal notice, not responded and he has been evading and avoiding redressing the grievance of the complainant.  Hence this complaint. 

          2. In spite of receipt of notice, the opposite party had not appeared before this Commission and hence, the opposite party was set ex-parte.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any negligent and deficiency in service on the part opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

The complainant filed proof affidavit and also documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked.

4. POINT NO :1

          The complainant has purchased Nokia Make 150 (2020) Model phone from the opposite party vide bill no. 673 dated 22.07.2021 for a sum of Rs.2500/- and after some time, the display of the phone was fused and did not appear.  When the complainant approached the opposite party about the malfunctioning of the mobile phone, the opposite party demanded a sum of Rs.500/- towards repairs, Rs.300/- towards replacement of battery and Rs.100/- towards re-charging of the battery and complainant paid and received the phone.  The complainant alleged that even after repairs, the phone was not functioning and it developed one after another repair and it became defunct, defective and deficient in nature.  Being the regular user of mobile phone, the complainant lost his contacts, local occupational works and put to undue losses, hardships besides mental tension and pain.  The opposite party not bothered about the hardships and thus directing to treat this phone as use and throw phone instrument instead of owing the responsibility of supply of defective phone.  The opposite party failed to replace with new phone and the complainant has sent a legal notice to opposite party on 06.12.2021, narrating the above said supply of defective phone and other problems faced.  The opposite party even after receipt of legal notice, not responded and he has been evading and avoiding redressing the grievance of the complainant and therefore claimed Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony. 

          The opposite party was set exparte on 08.04.2022  and have not filed any written version inspite of sufficient time granted to him and therefore he was set ex-parte in this complaint.                        

          The complainant purchased a mobile phone for Rs.2500/- from the opposite party which is marked as Ex.A1.  The complainant in the complaint, proof affidavit and written argument alleged that the display of the phone was fused and did not appear and he paid a sum of Rs.500+300+100/- to opposite party towards repair and battery replacement charges.  But no job card/repair proof or payment proof were filed by the complainant.  The date of such payment was also not mentioned by the complainant.  The complainant failed to mention about the warranty of phone and also not filed any warranty document. On the other hand it was noticed from Ex.A1 filed by the complainant, that “warranty void if it is water / physical damage.  Warranty is from company only.  Customer should admin the warranty direct from company.”As per this the complainant should have approached the manufacture for any defects during the warranty period instead of dealer.  But the complainant admitted in the complaint that he approached the opposite party for malfunction and the opposite party repaired it and charges also paid by complainant.  The complainant in his averment claimed replacement of new phone.  In the absence of job card/repair proof, it cannot be ascertained whether the phone was having any manufacturing defect.  Thus complainant failed to prove existence of any manufacturing defect to claim replacement of new phone.  It is observed from the complaint that complainant had not approached the manufacturing company and also not included the manufacturing company as one of the opposite party.  The complainant alleged that his occupational works have become prevented and he has lost many persons contacts.  To prove the above  averment, the complainant has not filed any documents. The complainant in his averment clearly admitted that the opposite party had attended the problems immediately whenever he approached.  Hence the contention of the complainant that opposite party was negligent and committed deficiency in service in not maintainable the complainant failed to prove the alleged loss and mental agony suffered by him.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to the compensation claimed under the head of the mental agony.  Therefore, we hold that there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Point no.1 is answered accordingly. 

5. Point No.2.

            Based on findings given to the Point.No.1 since there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party, the complainant is not entitled to the relief of compensation for mental agony as claimed in the complaint.  Point no.2 answered accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

Dictated  by the Member II to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by usin the open Commission on this the 25^thday of August 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                       MEMBER  II                         PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	22.07.2021	Photo copy of Bill
Ex.A2	06.12.2021	Photo copy of Legal Notice
Ex.A3	07.12.2021	Photo copy of Acknowledgement Card
Ex.A4		Photo copy of Aadhar Card

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                       MEMBER – II                         PRESIDENT