DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Fridayy the 15th day of November 2024
CC.591/2024
Complainant
Manzoor Ahammed. T.P,
Teepees, Vattayadukunnummal,
Vengeri. P.O, Kozhikode - 10
Opposite Party
Manager,
MYG India Pvt Ltd,
Sobha Centre, Maharani,
Mavoor Road, Calicut - 673004
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 01/07/2024 the complainant entrusted his mobile phone to the opposite party for repair of the display problem. The repair was done and the opposite party has collected Rs. 3,500/- towards repair charges. But within one month, the display became defective and on 01/08/2024 the device was again entrusted to the opposite party for repairs. But the opposite party was not ready to replace the display under warranty stating that the warranty is applicable only to the touchpad. Rs. 2,300/- was collected from him for repairs of the device. Hence the complaint to get refund of Rs. 3,500/- .
- The notice issued from this Commission on 09/10/2024 was duly served on the opposite party on 14/10/2024. But the opposite party did not respond to the notice and hence set ex-parte.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
- Whether there was any unfair trade and business practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, as alleged?
- Reliefs and costs.
- PW1 was examined and Exts A1 to A3 were marked.
- Heard.
- Point No. 1: The complainant has approached this Commission alleging unfair trade and business practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The grievance of the complainant is that the repairs to his mobile phone were not done under the warranty, even though the same was covered under warranty.
- PW1 is none other than the complainant and he has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the service advance receipt voucher dated 01/07/2024, Ext A2 is the copy of the job slip dated 01/08/2024 and Ext A3 is the copy of the tax invoice dated 07/08/2024.
- The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. From the documents produced by the complainant, it is seen that there was one month touchpad warranty for the repairs. Ext A3 shows that the display assembly was replaced. The replacement of the display assembly is not covered under warranty. The warranty is with regard to touchpad only. So the opposite party cannot be found fault with for replacement of the display assembly on payment basis. That being the position, no unfair trade and business practice or deficiency of service can be attributed against the opposite party.
- It is true that the opposite party chose to remain absent and did not participate in the proceedings. But that does not automatically entitle the complainant to get an order as prayed for. It is for the complainant to prove his case.
- As there is no proof of any unfair trade and business practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint must fail.
- Point No. 2: In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not entitled to claim and get any relief.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 15th day of November, 2024.
Date of Filing: 13/09/2024
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext.A1 – Copy of the service advance receipt voucher dated 01/07/2024.
Ext.A2 – Copy of the job slip dated 01/08/2024.
Ext.A3 – Copy of the tax invoice dated 07/08/2024.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 - Manzoon Ahammed. T.P (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
True Copy,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar.
