By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
1.Complaint in short is as follows:-
On 02/06/2020 complainant had purchased one LG Mobile phone worth
Rs.12,000/- from opposite party No1 shop, the MYG Mobile, Ramanattukara. Opposite party No.1 charged Rs.1350/- as insurance charge for the above mobile phone and complainant had paid Rs.1350/- to opposite party No.1. While purchasing the above mobile phone, opposite party No.1 assured that they will replace the mobile phone if it had got any defect.
2. On 02/09/2020 the above mobile phone got dyfunct and complainant approached opposite party No.1 and entrusted the defective mobile phone with purchase bill to them. Thereafter opposite party taken the bill from complainant and provided a job sheet to complainant. Thereafter opposite party No.1 directed the complainant to give the mobile phone in opposite party No.2 service centre for immediate repair. As per the direction of opposite party No.1, complainant entrusted the mobile phone to opposite party No.2 service centre directly. While entrusted the mobile phone in opposite party No.2 service centre, they assured that they will rectify the defect within two weeks otherwise they will give a new mobile phone to complainant. After two weeks elapsed complainant contacted opposite party No.2, but they said that the display of the phone is not available, hence they are waiting for the approval of the Manager for giving a new phone to complainant. 3. But after that no reply received from opposite party No.2. Hence on 27/11/2020 complainant contacted to opposite party No.1 and 2 , through email, but no reply received. Complainant purchased this mobile phone for the studies of his children in the Covid pandemic season. While giving the mobile phone for repair at opposite party No.2 service centre, complainant had recharged the phone for Rs. 399/-. Due to the deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties the regular classes of the complainant’s children were disrupted. Hence this complaint.
4. The prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled to get a brand new mobile phone instead of the defective phone and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant and cost of the proceedings.
5. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party No.1 & 2 and notice served on them and opposite party No.1 appeared before the Commission through their counsel , but no version filed. Hence opposite party No.1 set exparte . Opposite party No.2 filed version.
6. In their version, opposite party No.2 denied all the averments in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted. They admitted that complainant had purchased LG mobile phone from first opposite party and insurance taken for that product is the matter between first opposite party and complainant only. They again admitted that a complaint was registered a complaint with them and they said service call was attended promptly by them. The mobile phone was brought by the complainant directly to the service centre. On inspection it is found that the display of the mobile phone was not working and advised the complainant that they will replace the display if the spare is available otherwise they will recommend for the replacement of the product itself to the manufacturer that means LG Electronics India private limited. Then they intimated the things to the manufacturer and waited for the approval and the delay caused to get the approval is happened only due to the delay from the part of the manufacturer. They again stated that they are providing the address of the manufacturer of the mobile phone, LG electronics India Private Limited. They further state that they are not a competent party to resolve the grievance of the complainant. The manufacturer only can resolve the issue. Then they stated that as per the direction of manufacturer of the mobile phone, they contacted complainant to return the box of the mobile phone or the sticker containing the serial number of the phone for availing a brand new mobile phone as per the terms of the manufacturing company in the event of replacement of product. But complainant is failed to produce the box of the mobile phone or the sticker. Now also they are ready to replace the defect of the mobile phone of complainant with a brand new one, provided on condition of return the box of the mobile phone or the sticker containing serial number of the phone. Then they again stated that they are helpless, but the manufacturer is the party to redress the grievance of complainant.
7. Thereafter on 21/06/2022, complainant filed an IA 448/2022 to amend the complaint and IA 449/2022 to implead the manufacturer, LG Electronic India Private Limited as opposite party No.3. IA Allowed on that day itself and impleaded the manufacturer as opposite party No.3. Notice issued to opposite party No.3, but not appeared before the Commission. Hence opposite party No.3 set exparte on 14/11/2022. Thereafter opposite party No.2 did not file affidavit to prove their case. No affidavit recorded. Hence opposite party No.2 also set exparte. Then complainant filed affidavit and two documents.
8. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in
lieu of Chief examination and the documents he submitted were marked as Ext. A1 & A2 series. Ext.A1 is the copy of job sheet given by opposite party No.2 to complainant dated 02/11/2020. Ext.A2 series are the copies of Gmail communications between complainant and opposite parties (3 Nos.)
9. Heard the complainant and perused the affidavit and documents filed by complainant. The allegations against opposite parties are proved by the unchallenged evidence of complainant. There is no contra evidence in this matter. Moreover complainant produced two documents which are very supportive to prove his case. As per Ext.A1 document it is clear that complainant had entrusted his mobile phone to opposite party No.2 for repair on 02/11/2020. In that document opposite party No.2 clearly noted that the reported defect was ‘’touching not working/set under repair at work shop’’. From that, it is clear that the mobile phone which complainant had purchased was defective within 6 months of its purchase. In the complaint, complainant clearly noted that the mobile phone he purchased got dyfunct on 2/09/2020. From Ext. A2 series documents, the email communications between complainant and opposite parties, it is clear that the mobile phone of complainant which he purchased from opposite party No.1 shop got defective and complainant was totally disappointed due to the negligence and the bad response from the opposite parties. The opposite parties sent a reply email to complainant for saying sorry for the inconvenience caused to complainant by them. Hence the Commission finds that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint. Hence we allow this complaint holding that opposite parties are deficient in service.
10. We allow this complaint as follows:-
The opposite party No.3 is directed to give a brand new mobile phone of same specification to complainant and complainant is directed to return the mobile phone with him to opposite parties.
The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite parties are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.
Dated this 20th day of March , 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1& A2
Ext.A1 : Copy of job sheet given by opposite party No.2 to complainant dated
02/11/2020.
Ext.A2 : Series are the copies of Gmail communications between complainant and
opposite parties (3 Nos.)
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
CPR
