Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/16/302

K.K Madhusudhanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

MDS Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

08 Dec 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

 

    SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

  SMT.PREETHA G NAIR   : MEMBER

                        SRI.VIJU.V.R                  : MEMBER

 

CC.NO.302/2016 (Filed on : 16.06.2016)

ORDER DATED : 01.01.2022

COMPLAINANT

 

K.K.Madhusoodanan,

Residing at ‘Kamala Bhavan’,

Vellar, Kovalam.P.O,

Thiruvananthapuram

 

(By Adv.Rajaprathap.S.J)

 

                                                VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

1. M.P.S.Telecom Pvt Ltd,

D55, First and Second Floor,

Okhila Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi – 110 020

 

2. HTC Customer Service,

TVS Electronics Ltd, South Phase –7A,

Second Floor, Industrial Estate, Gundy, Chennai 600 032

 

3. The Proprietor,

Watch Gallery (Mobile show room)

Opp.Bhima Jewellery, Over bridge,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001

 

4. Leehan Retails Pvt Ltd,

4, SSK Saphire Plaza, Poona Airport Road,

Near Simbiosis College, Punai, Pin – 411 014

 

(OP4 by Adv.Anees Rasheed)

5. HTC Mobile Dealer, Univer Cell HTC Store,

Near St.Mary’s School, Pattom.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 004

 

5.  

 

6. The Proprietor,

Access Technology, TC.25/729,

Near Thycaud Hospital,

Near Raj Medicals,

Thycaud.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 014

 

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN        : PRESIDENT

        This complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order

1.     The case of the complainant in short is that on 27.08.2015, he purchased a brand new mobile phone from the third opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.10,900/- (Rupees ten thousand nine hundred only) towards consideration. The third opposite party also collected an additional amount of Rs.1,199/- (Rupees one thousand one hundred and ninety nine only )towards insurance premium coverage for the said device. On 07.12.2015 when the complainant was travelling from EastFort to Thiruvallam in his bike, the bike got slipped and the mobile phone purchased from third opposite party fell into the road and the front cover glass of the mobile phone got damaged. Immediately the complainant contacted the third opposite party and as directed by the third opposite party the complainant has approached the sixth opposite party, who is the authorised service centre of the manufacturer of the mobile. After repairing the mobile, as instructed by the sixth opposite party, the complainant had downloaded the Mobile Insurance Claim Form and sent the details to the fourth opposite party though online. Subsequently the officials of the fourth opposite party asked the complainant to take the photographs of the mobile phone and accordingly the complainant complied all the requirements demanded by the fourth opposite party. As there was no response from the 4^th opposite party, the complainant contacted the customer care of the 4^th opposite party, but the executive of the fourth opposite party has not came to collect the photographs and application as promised by them. Though the defect was occurred during the warranty period, the sixth opposite party collected Rs.4,915/- from the complainant which is against the warranty conditions. The complainant further alleges that though he was asked to take insurance for the device by paying additional amount of Rs.1,199/-, the opposite parties have failed to reimburse the money spend by the complainant for a mobile phone which is having a insurance coverage. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair practice, the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances. According to the complainant the opposite parties have violated the warranty and insurance policy terms and conditions.

2.     The opposite parties 1, 2 & 6 entered appearance and filed written version. The third opposite party once personally appeared but not filed any written version. For fourth opposite party a vakalth was filed but no version was filed on behalf of the fourth opposite party. The complainant filed an application to remove the name of the fifth opposite party from the party array and accordingly the same was allowed and name of fifth opposite party was removed / deleted from the party array. The second opposite party contended that they are only a service centre of the manufacturer of the mobile and the complainant has not approach the second opposite party for service or any other purpose in relation to the mobile phone purchased by the complainant and hence they have no connection with this complainant and impleaded unnecessarily in this proceedings. Opposite parties 1 & 6 filed written version. M/s.Access Technology is the sixth opposite party in the above complaint proceedings. But the written version filed by the first opposite party, the Access Technology is seen shown as written statement of opposite parties 1 & 3 instead of written statement of opposite parties 1 & 6. The opposite parties 3 & 4 not filed any version. In the written version filed by the opposite parties 1 & 6, they have denied the allegations of deficiency in service alleged by the complainant against those opposite parties. Subsequently since 19.04.2018 the opposite parties were continuously absent and hence on 20.08.2019, the opposite parties were called absent and set exparte.

        3.     Evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P9 on the side of the complainant. The opposite parties being declared exparte, there is no oral or documentary evidence on the part of the opposite parties.

Points to be considered

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief claimed in the complaint?
3. Order as to cost?

      4. Heard. Perused records. To establish the case of the complainant the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and documents Exts.P1 to P9 were produced and marked. Ext.P3 is the purchase issued by the third opposite party. Ext.P4 is the receipt for collecting additional amount of Rs.1,199/- towards insurance premium. Ext.P5 is receipt for Rs.4,115/- issued by the sixth opposite party in favour of the complainant towards collection of repair charges. Ext.P6 is the acknowledgment of the article issued by sixth opposite party after receiving the device from the complainant.

                 5. In paragraph 2 of the written version of first opposite party it is admitted that the complainant has purchased the third party insurance for protecting the cell phone. By producing and marking Ext.P4, the complainant has established the fact that he had paid Rs.1,199/- towards insurance premium. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant approached the sixth opposite party for repairing the device. The contention of the first opposite party is that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy if any physical damage is having to the mobile phone, the same will not cover under the warranty. In paragraph 5 of the written version filed by the first opposite party it is admitted that the mobile phone purchased by the complainant was covered by insurance, but the insurance company not considered the claim of the complaint. It is pertinent to note that the defect was occurred within the warranty period. From the admissions made by the first opposite party in the written version and by swearing an affidavit by the complainant as PW1 and by marking Exts.P1 to P9, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing the case put forward by him against the opposite parties. As the complainant could not produce any documents to prove that the second opposite party in any way connected with the service rendered to the mobile phone purchased by the complainant, we find that the second opposite party is not a necessary party to this proceedings and hence they are exonerated from the liability. From the above discussions, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1, 3, 4 & 6 by which  the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss. As the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1,3,4 & 6 resulted in mental agony and financial loss to the complainant, the opposite parties 1,3,4 and 6 are liable to compensate the loss suffered by the complainant. Hence we find that this is a fit case to be allowed.

                          In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 1,3, 4 & 6 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.4115/- to the complainant with Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) as compensation along with Rs.2500/-(Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) as cost of this proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of remittance / realisation.

                 A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

    Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 1^st day of January 2022.

                                                                     

                                                                   Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

 

                                                                Sd/-

        PREETHA G NAIR      : MEMBER

 

                                                                     Sd/-

                          VIJU.V.R                : MEMBER

 

 

Be/

 

APPENDIX

CC.NO.302/2016

Witness for the Complainant

PW1            - Madhusoodanan

Exhibits of the Complainant

Ext.P1         Copy of the Advocate notice dated 10.04.2016 with the acknowledgement card signed by the opposite parties 3 & 6

Ext.P2         Copy of Copy of the reply notice dated 29.04.2016 issued by the sixth opposite party

Ext.P3         Copy of bill dated 27.08.2015 for Rs.10,900/-

Ext.P4         Copy of bill dated 27.08.2015 for Rs.1,199/-

Ext.P5         Copy of the receipt dated 04.02.2015 for Rs.4,115.20/-

Ext.P6         Copy of bill dated 02.03.2016 issued by the sixth opposite party for Rs.560/-

Ext.P7         Copy of bill dated 23.03.2016 issued by the sixth opposite party for Rs.230/-

Ext.P8         Copy of warranty card

Ext.P9         Identity card issued by the fourth opposite party acknowledging the insurance coverage

Witness for the Opposite Party - NIL

Exhibits of the Opposite Parties- NIL

Court Exhibits         NIL  

                

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                             PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

CC.NO.302/2016

ORDER DATED : 01.01.2022