IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member,
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 46/2020 (filed on 04-03-2020)
Petitioner : K. Rathinasamy,
House No.96, Dwaraka House,
Near Pallipurathukavu,
Kodimatha, Kottayam -686013.
(Adv. Tom K. Jose)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Hello Mobile Palace,
Palace Road,
Palampadam Junction,
Kottayam – 686001.
2) Voiceplus Support Services
First Floor, Malikayil Building,
Opp.Mount Carmel,
L.P.School, Kottayam – 686004.
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The complaint is filed under Section -12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The brief of the complainant case is as follows:
The complainant purchased a Redmi 6 Pro mobile phone from the first opposite party on 12/02/2019 on payment of Rs.11,000/-. At the time of purchase, the first opposite party promised that the mobile phone is a new phone and will get one year warranty. The mobile phone got damaged on 29.01.2020.
On 30.01.2020 the complainant approached the second opposite party authorised service centre for repair of the mobile phone. The second opposite party refused to do the repair of the mobile phone on warranty by stating that the mobile phone was purchased on 21/01/2019 by one Praveen as per the record of the manufacturing company. Complainant approached the first opposite party with the mobile and reported the complaint. Even though they accepted the mobile phone on 30/01/2020 but informed late that the repair of the mobile phone can only be done on payment. The first opposite party had cheated the complainant by selling an old mobile phone with the promise that the product is a new one. The act of the opposite party is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
On admission of the complaint copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties. The first opposite party appeared and filed their version.
As per the version of the first opposite party the complainant had purchased the Redmi 6 Pro mobile phone on payment of Rs.11,000/-. It is also agreed that the mobile phone is registered with the manufacturer as sold to one Praveen on 21.01.2019. The first opposite party had purchased the mobile phone at the request of the complainant who visited the showroom of the first opposite party and requested for the purchase of the mobile phone as the same is not available in the open market and is sold only online. Considering the request of the complainant, the first opposite party had purchased the mobile phone from the manufacturer on 21/01/2019 and put the phone for sale. At the time of sale it was informed to the complainant that the mobile phone will carry one year warranty from 21.01.2019 and not from the date of purchase. The complainant purchased the mobile phone on agreeing all the conditions. The allegation that the mobile phone was accepted for repair on 30.01.2020 and returned on 04.02.2020 is not true. The mobile phone purchased by the complainant from the first opposite party is a new one. The first opposite party has not sold a second hand phone to the complainant.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.A1 to A9 documents. The first opposite party also filed proof affidavit.
The second opposite party failed to file their version or to appear before the Commission to defend their case. The second opposite party was set ex-parte.
On the basis of the complaint, version of the first opposite party and evidence adduced we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so what are the reliefs ?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider the Points No.1 and 2 together.
On going through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence on record, it is evident that the complainant had purchased Redmi-6 Pro(IMEI No.864669042585676) mobile phone from the first opposite party on 12.02.2019. Ext.A1 is the bill issued by the first opposite party on 12.02.2019 for a total amount of Rs.11,000/-. The gross value of the Redmi 6 Pro mobile phone is Rs.9821/-. Ext. A2 is the warranty card which shows that the phone is having one year warranty. The hand set defects list is also given in the warranty card. Ext.A3 is the service record issued by the second opposite party dated 05.02.2020. In Ext.A3 it is reported that customer purchased device from retailer, but as per XMS device is MI.Com purchase, so showing error as exceed one year warranty period, Ext.A4 is the notice dated 06.02.2020 issued by the complainant to the second opposite party and Ext.A5 is the notice dated 06.02.2020 issued by the complainant to the first opposite party.
In the counter affidavit filed by the first opposite party, it is agreed that the mobile phone is registered with the manufacturer as sold to one Praveen on 21.01.2019 is true. The first opposite party purchased the mobile phone at the request of complainant who had visited the first opposite party showroom and requested to purchase the particular mobile phone as the same is not available in open market and sold only online. Considering the request of the complainant that the first opposite party has purchased the mobile phone from the manufacturer on 21.01.2019 and has put the mobile phone for sale. The opposite party had not produced any evidence to show that the complainant had made such a request. Moreover the first opposite party agrees that the mobile phone was purchased on 21.01.2019 from the manufacturer and put on sale. If the mobile phone was purchased on the request of the complainant then there is no need to put the phone for sale in the showroom. This clearly shows that the first opposite party had purchased the mobile phone on 21.01.2019 with one year warranty and put the mobile phone for sale. The said mobile phone was sold to the complainant on 12.02.2020 as a brand new product having one year warranty from 12.02.2020.
This act of the first opposite party is unfair trade practice as per Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant. The complaint is allowed and we pass the following Order.
The first opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.9,821/- to the complainant with cost Rs.1000/-
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of order. If not complied as directed, the amounts will carry 6% interest from the date of order till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 21st day of March, 2022.
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1- Tax Invoice No.1312 dated 12.02.19
A2- Warranty card issued by the opposite party
A3- Service record dated 05.02.20 issued by the opposite party
A4- Complaint issued to the second opposite party
A5- Complaint issued to the first opposite party
A6- Postal receipt for complaint issued to the first op
A7- Postal receipt for complaint issued to the second op
A8- Acknowledgement from the first opposite party
A9- Acknowledgement from the second opposite party
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
