THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C. 387/2017
Dated this the 28th day of December 2018.
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. Hon’ble : President)
Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB : Member
ORDER
Present: Smt.Rose Jose, Hon’ble President:
This petition is filed by the petitioner Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation for the financial loss and other inconvenience suffered by him due to the inordinate delay on the part of the 1st opposite party in repairing his defective mobile phone and also cost of the proceedings.
The petitioner is the Branch Manager of TVS Group, Kozhikode Division. His case is that, he had purchased a Gionee PSL smart phone on 09.09.2016 worth Rs.9000/-. The handset is having 1 year warranty. On 08.09.2017 the phone showed some problems and stopped functioning. So he took the set to the dealer and as directed from there, he entrusted the phone with the 1st opposite party, the authorized service center of the 2nd opposite party. After inspection they told that the problem is with the display and assured that they will return it within 10 days after repair. But even after several personal visits and e-mail messages the 1st opposite party has not returned the set within the time as assured and so he contacted the customer care center of the 2nd opposite party but they also didn’t take any steps for getting the mobile soon after repair.
The petitioner stated that, in connection with his job as the branch manager of a reputed company he was very much in need of a smart phone with internet facilities and that is why he had purchased the said phone. But due to the undue delay on the part of the 1st opposite party in returning the set after repair he had suffered much inconveniences, mental stress and strain and also heavy financial loss. He could not conduct net banking, video conferencing or sent any mails through the phone or contact his senior officials and subordinates or collect daily reports from the subordinates and all these badly affected his business. As he was very much in need of a smart phone, he was constrained to purchase another mobile on 11.10.2017 spending Rs.15000/-. Only after one month and 2 days the 1st opposite party had returned the handset repaired.
The petitioner further stated that, the undue delay on the part of the 1st opposite party in returning the mobile after repair is deficiency in service on their part and that caused much inconvenience, mental stress and strain and also financial loss to him. Though he had contacted the 2nd opposite party through e-mail and made complaint regarding the delay on the part of the 1st opposite party, they have not done anything to get the mobile repaired soon. So both the opposite parties are liable to compensate him for his losses. Hence this petition seeking reliefs.
Though the opposite parties represented before the forum they didn’t file their version. Hence the opposite parties set ex-parte.
The petitioner filed affidavit in lieu of his petition and produced documents in support of his averments and that was marked as Ext.A1 to A3 as evidence on his side. Ext.A1 is the copy of email correspondence between the petitioner and the opposite parties. Ext.A2 is the copy of the purchase bill of the mobile dated 09.09.2016 for Rs.9,000/- and Ext.A3 is the copy of invoice dtd.11.10.2017 for the purchase of mobile worth Rs.15,000/-. According to the petitioner due to the said delay in getting the mobile repaired he was constrained to purchase another phone after spending Rs.15000/-. As the manufacturer the 2nd opposite party ought to have given direction to the 1st opposite party to return the set repaired immediately but they have done nothing in this regard. So the 2nd opposite party is also liable for the deficiency in service on the 1st opposite party, their authorized service Centre.
The opposite parties didn’t file version challenging the allegations of the petitioner or adduced any evidence to rebut the veracity of the documents marked as evidence on the side of the petitioner. So the case of the petitioner stands unchallenged and proved. Considering the nature of the job of the petitioner as a branch manager of a reputed business concern, no doubt a mobile is an inevitable part of his job and the lack of a phone or the defects with the phone will definitely cause much difficulties to him and it will adversely affect his day to day business. As the manufacturer the 2nd opposite party is bound to see that the customers are getting proper and timely after sale service through their authorized service center. The inaction of the 2nd opposite party in this regard is deficiency in service on their side.
The petitioner seek Rs.60,000/- as compensation for his financial loss and other hardships suffered. But in the absence of clear evidence of financial loss sustained by him, we cannot allow the prayer of the petitioner for the said amount as such. Even then he is entitled to get reasonable amount as compensation for his sufferings.
In the result the following order is passed.
The opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered to pay Rs.6,000/- as compensation to the petitioner for his sufferings due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which, the whole amount will carry 9% interest, from the date of default till payment.
Dated this 28th day of December 2018.
Date of filing: 25.10.2017
SD/- MEMBER SD/-PRESIDENT
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Copy of e-mail correspondence between the petitioner and opposite parties.
A2.Copy of purchase bill of the mobile dated 09.09.16 for Rs.9000/-
A3.Copy of invoice dtd.11.10.2017 for the purchase of mobile worth Rs.15000/-
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
Nil
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-PRESIDENT
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
