THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C. 17/2017
Dated this the 7th day of February 2018.
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB : Member
ORDER
Present: Beena Joseph, Member:
This petition was filed on 16.01.17 alleging deficiency of service and illegal trade practice adopted by the opposite party. The case of the complainant is that, he has purchased a mobile phone for Rs.16,000/- and the mobile became complaint on 24.05.16 complainant approached opposite party for service. Service person of the opposite party told that, it has got net work problem and it can be cleared after service. As assured by the opposite party complainant entrusted the mobile with the opposite party on 24.05.16. Thereafter complainant visited opposite party’s service centre on 25.05.2016 and 26.05.16 but it was not repaired on that days. On 27.05.16 when the complainant approached opposite party, he told that the net work issues were solved and advised the complainant to keep the phone in charging for few hours. After reaching home complainant charged the phone but to the utter dismay of the complainant the phone was not switch on and it was seen totally dead. Complainant rushed to the opposite party on 28.05.16 with his phone. Opposite party took the phone for service, complainant was assured that the defects will be repaired within a week. Complainant entrusted the phone with the opposite party as per Job card dated 28.05.16. After one week complainant enquired about the phone with the opposite party, they told that phone was under repair. Complainant demanded the details of service but no reply were given by the opposite party. Complainant firmly believes that the opposite party had cheated him by not looking into his complaints and collected the phone by stating absolute false statements. Complainant entrusted the phone with the opposite party on the assurance made by them. Complainant was not having a mobile phone for several weeks and sustained severe hardships and mental agony and face to huge financial loss. The above acts of opposite party amounts to gross deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, opposite party is liable to return the mobile handset after servicing. Complainant suffered much pain and agony for which opposite party is liable to compensate the petitioner and complainant estimates it as Rs.15000/-. The complainant is having no other way, caused to issue Lawyer notice to the opposite party on 29.06.16. On reception of above notice opposite party issued a reply notice dated 30.07.16 stating false and frivolous contentions. The allegation in the reply notice that the opposite party advised the complainant that, the handset was totally dead, no assurance for repairing works, complainant insisted the opposite party to keep the handset with opposite party and the complainant brought the handset in that condition etc. are false and denied by the complainant. Further statement in the notice that, the opposite party is an established retailer of all international brands of mobile in entire Kerala is not known to the complainant. The statement in reply notice that complainant’s phone will fetch a value less than Rs.3,000/- and the opposite party frequently called the complainant to take back the phone etc are false. Complainant was surprised, how the opposite party arrived at a value of Rs.3,000/- for his mobile which he had given to the opposite party for service. Hence the complainant claiming Rs.15,000/- as compensation for loss and mental agony with cost.
In this matter notice issued to both parties, both of them appeared. There was no version filed by the opposite party even after giving several chances. Hence opposite party is set ex-parte.
Thereafter complainant filed affidavit and Ext.A1 to A3 marked on his side. Ext.A1 is the Job card, Ext.A2 series is the lawyer notice and acknowledgment. Ext.A3 is the reply notice. The opposite party has not challenged the evidence adduced by the complainant.
On going through Ext.A1 it is seen that the complainant had entrusted the opposite party a HTC mobile phone on 28.05.16. The complaint of the phone was not working. Thereafter complainant issued lawyer notice to the opposite party for which the opposite party replied as per Ext.A3 that they are ready to handover the handset to the complainant with proper acknowledgment but there was no attempt on the part of opposite party to produce the phone before the Forum. The opposite party remained absent in the proceedings without answering to the allegations. This amounts to serious negligence on the part of opposite party. The complainant categorically establishes his case that, the mobile which entrusted for service is not returned by the opposite party. This is a clear example for the illegal trade practice adopted by opposite party.
Complainant claims Rs.15,000/- towards phone and compensation. But the complainant did not produced any document to show the value or price of the mobile. The manufacturing year or date of purchase is not mentioned in the petition. Hence the Forum is not in a position to value the price of the mobile and the loss sustained by the complainant. In this circumstances the petitioner’s claim cannot be accepted as such. In the result petition is allowed in part.
Therefore we direct the opposite party to pay Rs.7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand only) as compensation for loss, illegal trade practice and deficiency in service and to pay Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) as cost. Comply the order within one month from the date of receiving the copy of the order.
Dated this 7th day of February 2018.
Date of filing: 16.01.2017.
SD/-MEMBER SD/- PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Service Job sheet issued by the opposite party dtd.28.05.16.
A2.Series of Lawyer notice and acknowledgement.
A3. Reply notice dtd.30.07.2016.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
Nil
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President.
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
