DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 8th day of August, 2024
Filed On: 17/01/2022
PRESENT
Shri. D.B. Binu President
Shri. V. Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. Member
C.C. NO. 45/2022
COMPLAINANT
Sudhi Subhash, S/o. Subhash, Mullappillithadathil House, Pazhamthottam P.O, Pin-683565
V/s
OPPOSITE PARTY
Mobile Servicer, proprietor, Mobile Palace, New Bus Stand, Tripunithura, Pin-682301.
FINAL ORDER
D.B. Binu, President
1.A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant was a second-year BCom student at the time of the incident. He visited the establishment of the opposite party, located near the Tripunithura bus stand, to repair a mobile phone valued at ₹25,000. The repair was related to a malfunctioning power switch. The opposite party had displayed a sign at the shop stating that mobile phones would be repaired within an hour.
Despite multiple repair attempts by the opposite party, the phone was not satisfactorily repaired. Upon returning home, the complainant noticed a black mark on the mobile phone’s display, which had not been there previously. The display screen, which should have been uniformly black when off, was marred by this unexpected blemish. The complainant alleges that the damage occurred during the repair process carried out by the opposite party.
In response, the complainant returned to the opposite party’s shop to address the issue. However, the opposite party informed him that the black mark could not be removed unless the entire display was replaced. This response was unsatisfactory to the complainant, who had already been inconvenienced by the delayed repair.
The complainant further alleges that the lack of a properly functioning mobile phone disrupted his ability to study effectively for an upcoming exam, causing additional distress. After failing to resolve the matter directly with the opposite party, the complainant filed a complaint with the local police station. Subsequently, he approached the Consumer Commission, seeking redress for the deficient service and the impact it had on his academic performance.
The case was brought to the Commission after the issue remained unresolved through other channels, as the complainant sought compensation from the opposite party for the substandard service provided.
2. NOTICE:
The Commission issued a notice to the opposite party, who subsequently filed their version.
3. THE VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
It is admitted that the complainant visited the opposite party's shop with a request to repair his mobile phone. The opposite party made a sincere effort to address the issue and repair the phone to the best of their abilities. However, the complainant alleges that a black line appeared on the phone's display due to deficiencies in the service provided by the opposite party. The opposite party categorically denies this allegation.
The opposite party asserts that the phone was returned to the complainant in good working condition after the repair was completed. The black line on the display, as claimed by the complainant, appeared only after the phone was taken away from the opposite party's premises. The opposite party contends that this issue may have occurred due to the phone being dropped or mishandled after it was returned to the complainant.
The complainant is attempting to attribute the damage to the opposite party to seek compensation, even though the phone was no longer under the care of the opposite party when the alleged issue arose. The opposite party maintains that they provided a reasonable and satisfactory service, and any subsequent damage to the phone cannot be held against them.
In light of the above, the opposite party requests the Commission to dismiss the complaint as being devoid of merit and to hold that the opposite party cannot be held liable for any damages or defects that occurred after the phone was returned to the complainant.
The opposite party seeks an order dismissing the complaint with all costs and charges incurred in this matter.
4. Evidence:
The complainant submitted a proof affidavit along with one document. The document in the complaint is marked as Exhibits A1.
- Exhibit A1: Copy of the service receipt.
5. Points for Consideration:
The main points to be analyzed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iii) Costs of the proceedings, if any?
6. The issues mentioned above are considered together and answered as follows:
The core of the complaint revolves around the alleged deficiency in service by the opposite party. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish the deficiency in service. This principle has been upheld in various judgments, including the case of SGS India Ltd vs. Dolphin International Ltd [(2021) AIR SC 4849], where the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that "the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant." In the absence of sufficient evidence, mere allegations cannot be the basis for holding the opposite party liable.
In this case, the complainant has failed to substantiate his allegations with concrete evidence. No expert opinion or technical analysis was presented to establish that the black mark on the display was a result of the repair carried out by the opposite party.
Additionally, the opposite party's contention that the damage could have been caused by the complainant's mishandling of the phone post-repair is a plausible defense. The absence of any expert testimony or evidence to counter this assertion further weakens the complainant's case.
7. Deficiency in Service and Negligence:
The term "deficiency" as defined under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, refers to any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law or as is claimed by the person performing the service. In the present case, the complainant has not been able to prove that the service provided by the opposite party was deficient as per the statutory or contractual obligations. Moreover, the opposite party’s liability cannot be extended to cover potential mishandling by the complainant after the service was rendered.
In conclusion, the Commission finds that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims of deficiency in service or negligence by the opposite party. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed, and no relief is granted to the complainant. We have decided not in favour of the complainant on all the issues mentioned above. After careful consideration, we found that the case presented by the complainant is meritless. As a result, the following orders have been issued.
ORDER
Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 8th day of July, 2024.
Sd/-
D.B. Binu, President
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Complainant’s Evidence
Exhibit A1: Copy of the service receipt
Opposite party’s Exhibits
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/ CC No. 45/2022
Order Date: 08/08/2024
