Present : Sri. C.T. Sabu, President
Smt. Sreeja. S., Member
Sri. Ram Mohan R., Member
24th day of February 2023
CC 650/18 filed on 19/12/18
Complainant : Clement K.I., S/o K.D. Inashu, Karerakkattil House,
St. Mary’s Street, Kuriachira, Chiyyaram Village,
Thrissur.
(By Advs. Ranjith V.R. & M.B. BijuBalan, Thrissur)
Opposite Party : The Manager, My G Kuruppam Road,
Door No.12/316, 12/317, 12/318,
Akkara Tower, Kuruppam Road,
Thrissur – 680 001.
(Ex-parte)
O R D E R
By Sri. C.T. Sabu, President :
Brief Facts of the Case as follows:
The complainant purchased a Redmi 5A Gold :Xiaomi : Mobile 868944036619443 from the opposite party on 26/05/2018. At the time of purchase the opposite party made believe that they are the authorised dealer as well as the authorised service agent for the Redmi mobiles. Also assured warranty for one year for the phone and six months for its accessories and that no charge will be imposed for the repair of the phone and accessories within the warranty period. But the ear phone became defective within three months from the date of purchase. Accordingly it was entrusted with the opposite party to repair the same. On 16/09/2018 it was informed from the opposite party that the ear phone got repaired. When the complainant approached them to get back the ear phone the opposite party insisted for Rs.300/- (Rupees Three hundred only) as service charge. During the warranty period the opposite party is not entitled for any charge from the complainant. When the complainant reminded the same the opposite party ridiculed the complainant and demanded the service charge. The ear phone was returned only after realising the service charge. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and constitutes unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant caused a lawyer notice to the opposite party claiming the service charge collected as against warranty. Also claimed compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to him but not yielded any result. Hence this complaint.
2) On receiving complaint proper notice served to the complainant. The opposite party failed to enter appearance or filed their version.Hence the proceedings against the opposite party set ex-parte and the case posted for complainant’s evidence .
3) When the case came for evidence the complainant filed proof affidavit in which he affirmed and explained all the averments made in the complaint in detail. From the side of the complainant there are 6 documents produced which are marked as Exts. A1 to A6. Ext. A1 is the Retail Invoice No. I/KRD/2504 dtd. 26/05/18 for Rs.6,499/- issued by MyG, Kuruppam Road. Ext. A2 is the Warranty Card of Redmi. Ext. A3 is the copy of Tax Invoice No. R/KRD/464 dtd. 16/09/2018 for Rs.300/- issued by MyG, Kuruppam Road. Ext. A4 is the lawyer notice dt. 24/09/18 send by the complainant. Ext. A5 is the Postal Receipts dtd. 28/09/18. Ext. A6 is the Postal Acknowledgement card.
4) We have gone through the averments of the proof affidavit and thoroughly perused the documents produced from the side of the complainant. The documents produced from the part of the complainant are sufficient to prove the case of the complainant. As there is no contra evidencewe are in the opinion that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
5) The Opposite Party had not cared either to enter an appearance or to file the written version before the Commission even after receiving the Commission's notice to that effect. The Opposite Party’s conscious failure to submit their written version amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them by the complainant. The Honourable National Commission expressed the same view in its order dated 09.10.2017 in RP 579/2017 [2017 (4) CPR 590]. Since there is no contra evidence we are inclined to allow this complaint.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to return to the complainant Rs.300/- (Rupees Three hundred only) collected from him as service charge and also to pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards cost and compensation for this complaint. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receiving copy of this order. If failed, the complainant is entitled for 12% interest p.a. for the entire amount from the date of complaint till realisation
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 24th day of February 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
SreejaS. Ram Mohan R C. T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. A1 Retail Invoice No. I/KRD/2504 dtd. 26/05/18 for Rs.6,499/- issued by
MyG, Kuruppam Road.
Ext. A2 Warranty Card of Redmi.
Ext. A3 copy of Tax Invoice No.R/KRD/464 dtd. 16/09/2018 for Rs.300/-
issued by MyG, Kuruppam Road.
Ext. A4 lawyer notice dt. 24/09/18 send by the complainant.
Ext. A5 Postal Receipts dtd. 28/09/18.
Ext. A6 Postal Acknowledgement card.
Id/- President
