SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019  for an order directing  the OPs t to 3 jointly and severally liable to cure  the defects of the phone with free of cost  or  to  refund  the value of  mobile  phone Rs.18,508.25 to the complainant along with Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony  and cost of litigation to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice  on  the  part of OP’s.

The brief  of the complaint :

    The  complainant  had purchased Samsung mobile M31 6/128 Blue model mobile phone from 1^st  on 11/8/2020 for an amount of Rs.18,508.25/-.  At the time of purchasing the 2 mobile phone the OPs assured one year warranty with  free repair.  The complainant had purchased the mobile phone for his children’s education purpose in order to believe the advertisement and  assurance of OPs also.  The OPs assured that the products is free from all defects.  But within the warranty period the phone became defective and the complainant approached to 1^st OP for repair the phone.  Then 1^st OP checked the phone and stated that the phone is having  water damage and returned  to complainant. The act of  OPs, the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the complaint.

       After receiving notice  1^st  OP entered before the commission  and filed his written version.   He contended  that 1^st OP is only the dealer of the product.  If there is  any defect caused  in the  product  OPs 2&3 are liable  to compensate the  same.  The complainant is not produced the expert report also.  Moreover, 1^st OP’s side no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the  complaint may be dismissed.  After receiving  notice Ops 2&3 are also appeared before the commission and filed their written version.  2^nd OP contended that if any manufacturing defect in the product is construed from the complaint the  complainant has  prove the same by test report.  The product does carry warranty only which means the product shall be repaired free of cost.  But in this case, the product is defective within the warranty period and the 2^nd OP is fails to cure the defect with free of cost.  3^rd OP contended that who is the authorised service centre of 2^nd OP and he done the work only with the terms and condition of 2^nd OP.  So the complainant is not appeared before  him and this  3^rd OP’s liability may be exonerated.

      On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following  issues  were framed for consideration.

1. Whether there is  any deficiency of service   on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3. Relief and cost.

     The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1& A2 were marked. On OP’s side DW1 was examined . After that the learned counsels of both parties made arguments and 2^nd OP filed argument note also.

Issue No.1: 

         The  Complainant  adduced evidence before the commission by submitting  his chief affidavit in lieu of  his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the  contentions in the version.  He was cross examined as PW1 by  OPs. He relied upon  Exts.A1 & A2 documents.  According to the complainant on 11/8/2020 the complainant had purchased Samsung  M31 6/128 Blue model mobile phone for an amount of Rs.18,508.25/- from 1^st OP that shows in Ext.A1 tax invoice .  In Ext.A2 is the warranty card.  The product does carry warranty  which means  the product  shall be  repaired  free of cost up to  the period of one year from the date of purchase.  So the product  is defective within the  warranty period and the  2^nd OP is not ready to cure the defects with free of cost.  Then the 2^nd OP alleged that the defect is occurred physical damage to the product and the warranty conditions are not applicable for any kind of physical  damage.  But the 2^nd OP is not proved that the defect caused as physical damage.  Moreover , in the evidence of PW1&DW1 they admits that the defects occurred in the product is at warranty  period.  So we  hold that the act of  OPs, the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of all OPs.  Hence the  issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.

Issue No.2&3:

    As discussed above the OPs are not ready to cure the defects of the mobile phone.  The complainant produced Ext.A1 document which  clearly shows that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone for an amount of Rs.18,508.25/-.  In Ext.A2 is the warranty card  also.  The complainant’s phone became damaged within the warranty period.  But the Ops are not cured the defect also.  According to the complainant failure to cure the defects of the mobile phone , the OPs are directly bound  to  redressal the grievance caused to the complainant.  Therefore we hold that  the  Ops 1 to 3 are  jointly and severally  liable to cure the  defects of the mobile phone  with free of cost .  But they failed to do .  So the OPs are jointly  and severally liable to refund the value of  mobile phone Rs.18,508/- to the complainant along with  Rs.4000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant  and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost.  Thus issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered. 

          In the result the complaint is allowed in part  directing the   opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly  and severally liable to refund the value of  mobile phone worth Rs.18,508/- to the complainant along with  Rs.4000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant  and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost within  30 days of  receipt  of this order. In default the amount of Rs.18,508/- carries 12% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.  If the opposite parties  are  fail to comply the order, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  After compliance of the said proceedings the opposite parties are at liberty to take back the mobile phone from the complainant.

Exts:

A1- Tax invoice

A2-Warranty card

PW1-Haridas.M.A- complainant

DW1-Madani.K-1^st  OP

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR