BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             : MEMBER

C.C.No. 586/2016  Filed on 13/12/2016

ORDER DATED: 17/12/2021

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT:

1. This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.  After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:
2. The case of the complainant in short is that on 25/05/2016 the complainant purchased a Mobile Phone(Lenovo VIBE K5 Plus) through the 2^nd opposite party flipcart by paying an amount of Rs.8,499/-.  When the complainant started using said Mobile Phone, there was over heating and hence the complainant through her son’s email ID informed the 2^nd opposite party with regard to this problem and requested to replace the said phone with another new piece or to refund the amount.  Inspite of repeated request and demands made by the complainant the opposite parties failed to refund the amount or replace the mobile phone as demanded by the complainant.  The overheating problem is normally not expected from a new brand mobile phone purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties.  In between the complainant approached the service centre of Lenovo mobiles situated at Thiruvananthapuram, more than once, and inpite of repairs done from the service centre, the overheating problem still persisted.  According to the complainant the mobile phone purchased by the complainant has got some inherent manufacturing defect.  Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the complainant approached this Commission for redressing her grievances. 
3. The 1^st opposite party after receipt of notice from this Commission failed to appear before this Commission on the date fixed for the appearance of the parties and hence on 24/04/2017, the 1^st opposite party was declared ex parte.  The opposite parties 2 and 3 filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite parties 2 and 3.  According to the opposite parties 2 & 3 there is no merit or bonafid in the complaint filed by the complainant.  The opposite parties 2 and 3 denied the allegations of manufacturing defect, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice raised by the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Evidence in this case consists of PW1 Ext.P1 to P11.  1^st opposite party was ex parte and though the opposite party 2 and 3 filed affidavit, they have not marked any document on the side of the opposite parties.         
5. Points to be considered:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

               on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitle to the relief claimed in the
3.  
4. Order as to cost?

15. Heard. Perused records.  To establish the case of the complainant the complainant herself was examined a PW1 and Ext.P1 to P11 marked.  The document Ext P1 is the copy of invoice bill.  Ext.P2 is the copy of E-mail from filpkart dated 05/06/2016.  Ext.P3 is the copy of E-mail from Flipkart.  Ext.P4 is the copy of E-mail from Flipkart dated 09/12/2016.  Ext.P5 is the Copy of Lenovo Service Record.  Ext.P6 is the copy of token and details of Dreams Mobiles.  Ext.P7 & Ext.P8 are the copies of E-mail from flipkart dated 09/12/2016 and 21/06/2016 respectively.  Ext.P9 is the copy of E-mail from Lenovo.  Ext.P10 is the copy of E-mail from Lenovo.  Ext.P11 is the copy of E-mail from Lenovo Service – ED.  The complainant filed her chief affidavit on 21/04/2017 and inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the opposite parties failed to cross examine the complainant and hence the complainant’s evidence was closed on 17/08/2017.  Though the opposite parties 2 and 3 filed affidavit they have not turned up for marking documents on behalf of the opposite parties.  As such there is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite parties 2 and 3.  As the opposite parties fail to cross examine the complainant the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.  More over there is no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the opposite parties.  In the above circumstances the evidence adduced by the complainant is accepted in the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties.  In view of the above discussion, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing her case put forward against the opposite parties.  We also find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, which lead to mental agony, financial loss and sufferings and in convenience to the complainant.  As the inconvenience, mental agony and financial loss was due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, we find that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severely liable to compensate the complainant. 

In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.8,499/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Nine Only)  and to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant along with Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) towards the cost of this proceedings within  30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization.  The complainant is also directed to return the mobile phone to the opposite parties within 7 days from the date of compliance of this order by the opposite parties.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 17^th  day of December,  2021.

C.C. No. 586/2016

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                            Sd/-

PRESIDENT