DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB    : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Friday the 24^th day of May 2024

CC.93/2021

Complainant

                        Jaimon,

S/o. Ouseph,

Kalarathil (HO),

Chelavoor. P.O,

Kozhikode - 673571

Opposite Parties

1.              Managing Director,

MYG/3G Mobile World,

MYG Future, Door No. 28/3856 RI-R15,

Pottammal Junction, Kozhikode.

2.               RV Solutions Pvt. Ltd,

D 29, Sector 2, Noida – 20130

                        Pottammal Junction, Kozhikode.

(By Adv. Sri. Dilkhush. V.K, Smt. Benazeera. K.P)

ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT

            This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

On 30/06/2020, the complainant purchased an Alcatel tablet from the first opposite party paying Rs. 15,300/-. It was purchased for enabling his children to attend the online classes during Covid-19 pandemic period. But after a short period of use, the tab began to show charging issue and on account of this his children were not able to attend the online classes.

3. On 18/06/2021 the complainant approached the first opposite party in person and reported the issue. The first opposite party directed him to approach the service centre at Kozhikode. But the complainant could not find any such service centre at the location stated by the first opposite party. Though he tried to contact the number shown in the invoice, nobody attended the call. Hence the complainant again approached the first opposite party. Then one of the employees of the first opposite party stated that they were not in a position to say about the date on which the product could be returned after repairs and did not accept the tab.
4. Again on 25/06/2021 he approached the first opposite party and then also he was sent back stating that they could not say anything about the time that would be taken for repairs. The tab is now a worthless product as far as the complainant is concerned. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to replace the product with a new one or refund the price.
5. The first opposite party entered appearance and filed  written version. The second opposite party was set ex-parte.
6. The first opposite party, in their version, has admitted the purchase of the tab by the complainant on 30/06/2020. According to them, the complainant had never approached them with any such complaint to the tab. The tab was selected by the complainant at his own choice. It is clear from the complaint that the defect occurred due to the negligent handling of the tab by the children of the complainant. There was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the first opposite party. With the above contentions, the first opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.
7. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;

      1) Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on  the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?

                        2) Reliefs and costs.

8. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 and A2 were marked.  At the time of evidence, the contesting first opposite party also remained absent.
9. Heard.
10. Point No 1 :  The complainant has approached this Commission with a grievance that the Alcatel tablet purchased by him paying Rs. 15,300/- became defective within a short period and there was gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties in attending his grievance. The complainant is seeking replacement of the product with a new one or refund of the price.
11. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1. PW1 has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim.PW1 has asserted that there was gross neglect on the part of the opposite parties to address his concerns over the tab, even though he had approached them several times. Ext A1 is the retail invoice dated 30/06/2020 and Ext A2 is the extended warranty.   
12. The second opposite party has remained ex-parte. The first opposite party, though has filed written version contending that the complainant had never approached them with any such complaints to the tab and that the complaint to the tab arose because of the negligent handling by the children, they also opted to remain absent at the time of evidence and did not cross examine PW1. The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite parties have not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant. There is no cross examination or contra evidence to disprove the claim of the complainant.  The case of the complainant stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Exts A1 and A2.
13. Admittedly, there was warranty and extended warranty for the product. The complaint arose during the warranty period. The act of the opposite parties in not attending the complaint, that too during the warranty period amounts to unfair trade practice and gross deficiency of service. The complainant purchased the tab for enabling his children to attend online classes during covid-19 pandemic period. The purpose of purchase of the tab was defeated due to the latches and the irresponsible conduct and attitude of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are bound to repair/service the tab and make it in a sound working condition or in the alternative, refund the price to the complainant after taking back the tab. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 3,000/- as cost of the proceedings.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable. 
14. Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;

                 a)  CC.93/2021 is allowed.

b) The opposite parties are hereby directed to repair/service the Alcatel tablet of the complainant (Invoice No. 1/POT/12675 dated 30/6/2020) and make it in a sound working condition within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, or in the alternative, refund its price amounting to Rs. 15,300/- (Rupees fifteen thousand three hundred only) to the complainant, after taking back the tablet. It is made clear that the complainant shall not be required to pay any charges for such repairs.

c) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 24^th day of May, 2024.

Date of Filing:  29/06/2021      

                                                        Sd/-                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                 PRESIDENT                                                                            MEMBER

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext.A1 – Retail invoice dated 30/06/2020.

Ext.A2 – Extended warranty.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Nil.

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 - Jaimon (Complainant)

                                                    Sd/-                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                            PRESIDENT                                                                                        MEMBER

True Copy,    

                                                                                                                                                               Sd/-  

                                                               Assistant Registrar.