Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/36/2017

Mr.Mathew S/o,Elumalai - Complainant(s)

Versus

LAVA/Care,Authorised service centre - Opp.Party(s)

C.Jayaprakah& P.Karthik

26 Sep 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  06.03.2017

                                                                Order pronounced on:  26.09.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY THE 26^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.36/2017

 

 

Mr.Mathew,

S/o.Elumalai,

15, Canal Street,

Kannigapuram,

Chennai - 600 012,

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

Lava/Care

Authorised Service Centre,

Skill Care,

221, 1^st  Floor, paper Mills Road,

(Near Venus park, Indian Bank),

Perambur,

Chennai - 600 011,

 

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 06.04.2017

Counsel for Complainant                      : C.Jayaprakash , P.Karthik

Counsel for Opposite Party                      : Ex-parte (08.06.2017)

 

                                               

      O R D E R

 

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the Complainant to direct the opposite party to replace the defective mobile with new one and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with cost of the compliant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased a Lava  Pixel V2 Crystal White mobile phone for the sum of Rs.10,000/- during december 2015. The complainant while charging the mobile the battery took very long time for charging and after removal entire charge goes out of the mobile. Hence the complainant entrusted the mobile to the opposite party service centre on 15.02.2016 and also paid a sum of Rs.1,200/- towards service charge. The said amount paid by the complainant after the technician checked the phone and demanded him to pay the amount.

          2. The complainant approached the opposite party to return the mobile after service, the opposite party demanded a sum of Rs.5,500/- stating that for replacement of OS and Mother Board and for spares. Since the opposite party refused to give the phone and demanded higher amount, the complainant issued Ex.A2 legal notice and the same was acknowledged by him under Ex.A3. The opposite party refused to hand over the phone after collecting service charge is deficiency on his part. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite party to replace the defects mobile with new one and also to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- with cost of the complaint.     

 

3. Though the Opposite Party received notice to appear before this Forum on 08.06.2017 hearing,  he did not appear and he was set ex –parte.  

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

5. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant purchased a Lava  Pixel V2 Crystal White mobile phone  on payment of Rs.9,700/- under Ex.A1 dated 30.09.2015 from the dealer cell -“O”- cell. The said mobile battery took very long time for charging and after removal the entire charge getting down from the mobile. Hence on 15.12.2016 the complainant entrusted the mobile with the opposite party lava care service centre to rectify the defective battery. The job sheet issued is marked as Ex.A1 at page 3 of the documents. After checking the mobile the technician demanded a sum of Rs.1,200/- towards service charge. The said amount was paid by the complainant and for the same the opposite party issued receipt which is available at page 2 in Ex.A1. The complainant demanded to return the mobile after service. The opposite party demanded a further sum of Rs.5,500/- which is unfair trade practice.

6. The opposite party remained ex-parte and there is no contra evidence for the above facts. Hence the above case of the complainant is accepted. Therefore the opposite party after receiving 1,200/- towards service charges and even after service demanded  from more the complainant, refused to deliver the product to the complainant is unfair trade practice and thereby we hold that the complainant proved that the opposite party committed deficiency in service.    

         

07. POINT NO:2

          The complainant wanted replacement of mobile. Within three months of the purchase of the product became defective and even after demand, the opposite party refused to deliver the mobile proves that the product is in the custody of the opposite party. Therefore it would be appropriate to order to refund the cost of the mobile of Rs.9,700/- to the complainant would meet ends of justice.

          8. The complainant is not having is mobile from December 2015 onwards and thereby he suffered with mental agony is accepted. The opposite party even after receipt of service charge and subsequently demanding higher amount to deliver the product is unfair trade practice not only to this complainant and such an unfair trade practice are also against public at large. Therefore considering this circumstances we are inclined to order and direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant,  besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The  Opposite Party is ordered to refund a sum of Rs.9,700/- (Rupees nine thousand and  seven hundred only) towards the cost of  mobile to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards  compensation for mental agony besides a sum of  Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

 

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.        

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 26^th day of September 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

IST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 30.09.2015                            Bill Copy

Ex.A2 dated 05.01.2017                            Legal Notice issued by the complainant to

                                                             the opposite party

 

Ex.A3 dated 26.08.2015                            Acknowledgement Card

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT