By Sri.  A.S. Subhagan, Member:-

This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:-   The Complainant purchased a Redmi Y1 (Gold 32 GB)  (XIMI- REDMI-Y1-3GB-GOLD)  model mobile handset,  a product manufactured and sold by 1^st  Opposite  party,  on 08.11.2017,  paying  Rs.8,998/-.  The purchase was through online booking through  amazon.in.   On account of the continuous non getting of the net work in the mobile phone the Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party and reported the matter to him on 31.10.2018.  Then   2^nd Opposite Party inspected the mobile handset and reported to the Complainant that the non-getting of network is not   because of the  service  provider but of the  defect of the mother board.  2^nd  Opposite party also reported  that for curing the defect of the handset the product  to be directly forwarded to the company as expert technicians are  not available there.  As the Complainant agreed to the proposal of 2^nd  Opposite party,  on 31.10.2018 itself   the Complainant handed over the hand set                 to 2^nd Opposite Party for curing the defect.  On 02.11.2018  2^nd  Opposite        Party demanded    Rs.5,000/-  for replacing    the mother    board,    from   the   Complainant   under warranty period.   2^nd  Opposite Party  declared that they cannot replace the mother board free of cost and as per demand of the  Complainant,  2^nd  Opposite Party gave the Complainant a copy of job sheet and inspite of the  request of the Complainant,  2^nd  Opposite Party was reluctant  to return the damaged mobile even.   By producing and  selling lower quality and substandard products  1^st and 2^nd  Opposite Parties have cheated the Complainant and are liable for  unfair trade    practice    and   deficiency   of service.  Hence the Complainant has prayed for directing the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/-  for unfair trade practices and deficiency in service,  a sum of  Rs.1,000/-  as cost of the complaint and either to replace  the mother board and cure the defect or to pay the price of the mobile phone Rs.8,998/- 

3.  1^st and 2^nd  Opposite Parties neither appeared nor represented before  the Forum  inspite of notices.  Hence  1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties were  declared  ex-parte.  Exts.A1 and A2  were marked and Complainant was examined on 25.01.2020 accepting  the proof affidavit produced by the complainant and the complaint was finally heard on 03.02.2020.

4.  Upon  perusal of the complaint,  documents marked and evidence on examination of complainant  as PW1,  the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

1.  Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite

       Parties?

2.  Whether there is any deficiency of service  on the part of the Opposite

       Parties?

3.  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get compensation as prayed for?

4.  Relief and cost.

            5.  On the side of the Complainant he was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on his side.  A1 is the  tax invoice/bill copy dated 08.11.2017  and Ext.A2 is the copy of job sheet dated 12.11.2018.

            6. Point No.1:-  As per  the contention of the Complainant he had purchased the mobile hand set  in question  from the Opposite parties and in proof of which the Complainant has produced  Ext.A1 which  is the tax invoice/bill issued  by the Opposite Party No.2.  The Complainant contents that the complaint occurred to  the mobile  hand set is  due to  the manufacturing of mobile hand set using low quality sub-standard spare parts.  Though the Complainant  demanded to  return the damaged hand set,  Opposite Parties  did not care to  return it.  The

Opposite parties did not care to appear before the Forum and did not made any defence  to disprove  the allegations of the Complainant.  Hence the Forum has no other way to disbelieve the contentions of the Complainant  but to declare that there is   unfair trade practice on the part of the  Opposite Parties.

            7. Point No.2:-  On  going through the contentions of the Complainant  it is made clear that the Complainant has handed over the  mobile  hand set   to the Opposite Party for making it in proper  working condition.  This contention is proved by  Ext.A2  job sheet issued by the Opposite Party.  The Complainant  also

-5 -

reiterated that the Opposite parties have neither made the mobile hand set in proper working  condition during the warranty period  nor returned  it  to the Complainant inspite of  his request.  The above contention of the Complainant also not defended by the Opposite Parties as they did not  appear  before the Forum at any stage of evidence.  Hence the Forum has no other way to disbelieve the contentions of the Complainant   but to declare that there is deficiency of service on the part of the  Opposite Parties.

            8. Point No.3:-    The product supplied by the Opposite Parties have become  damaged during the warranty period and the Opposite Parties have neglected to make it in proper working condition inspite of repeated demand  made by the Complainant nor returned the  product as per the request of the Complainant.  Hence the complainant  has the right to get compensation.

            9. Point No.4:-  Since point No. 1, 2 and 3 are found against the Opposite Parties the  Forum  pass the order regarding relief and cost as follows.

            In the result,  the complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties No.1 and 2  are ordered jointly and  severally to pay the Complainant compensation of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand  only)  and cost of Rs.1,000/-  (Rupees One thousand only).  The Opposite Parties are also ordered to  return the mobile hand set in proper working condition to the Complainant failing which the Opposite Parties shall  jointly and severally return Rs.8,998/-  (Rupees Eight thousand Nine hundred and Ninety Eight only)  the price of the mobile hand set to the Complainant within one month from the date of  receipt of this order.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the  13^th  day of February 2020.

Date of filing : 10.04.2019.

                                                                                                PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                                                MEMBER:     Sd/-

                                                                                                MEMBER :    Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant.:-

PW1.              Dileep Kumar E.N                           Complainant.                                  

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

Nil.                 

Exhibits for the Complainant:    

A1.      Copy of Tax  Invoice/Bill of Supply/Cash Memo.      dt:08.11.2017.

A2.      Copy of  Job sheet.               dt:12.11.2018.   

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

Nil.