By Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:
This is a consumer complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Facts of the complaint in brief:- On 11.11.2021 the Complainant purchased a Redmi Note 10 Pro Mobile phone from the 1st Opposite Party. After using the mobile phone for same days the phone became useless and as such the Complainant approached the authorized Service Centre on 01.12.2022 and entrusted it to the 2nd Opposite Party at Sulthan Bathery. The 2nd Opposite Party replaced the mother board and returned it telling that now the phone has no complaint. But on 27.02.2022 the same complaint was repeated and therefore on approaching the second Opposite Party, they replaced and installed a new software and gave back the mobile phone telling that the phone has become useful. But after some days the same complaint repeated again and now the mobile phone was not able to be used. The Complainant has to travel a distance of ‘90’ kilometers per day to visit the service centre. Hence the complaint is filed praying that
- The Opposite Parties may be directed to replace the mobile phone by a new one or to refund the purchase price of the mobile phone of Rs.19,200/- together with interest @ 12% and
- The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation and other expenses to the Complainant.
- Commission registered the complaint and notice was served on the
Opposite Parties for appearance before the Commission and for contesting the case. But, the Opposite Parties did not appear and hence they were set exparte.
4. Affidavit was filed by the Complainant. Documents Ext.A1 and A2 were marked from his side and he was examined as PW1. In affidavit, the Complainant reiterated all his contentions shown in the complaint. On scrutiny of the complaint, affidavit and documents marked the Commission finds the following. It is evident from Ext.A1 that the mobile phone in question was purchased by the Complainant on 11.11.2021 from the 1st Opposite Party. Ext.A2 which is the copy of the service order reveals that the defective mobile phone was entrusted to the 2nd Opposite Party for servicing. The contention of the Complainant is that inspite of repeated servicing, the mobile phone became frequently useless. The Opposite Parties had the opportunity to appear before the Commission and were at liberty to contest the case but they did not. Therefore, there is no other option before us than to believe the contentions of the Complainant. Sale of a defective mobile phone and not servicing it properly without defects amounts to unfair trade practice/deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Parties and hence the Complainant has the right to get the defective mobile phone replaced by a new one and to get compensation as prayed for.
In the result the complaint is allowed and the 1st Opposite Party is ordered to
- Replace the defective mobile phone with a new one and otherwise to refund Rs.19,200/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand Two hundred only) being the purchase price of the mobile phone together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of this complaint and to
- Pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) as compensation and other expenses to the Complainant jointly and severally by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties.
The above orders shall be complied by the Opposite Parties within one
month from the date of this order failing which the Complainant can recover the amount together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by
me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 4th day of August 2022.
Date of Filing: 11.04.2022.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. John. P.A Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of bill. dt:11.11.21.
A2. Copy of Service Order.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
