SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking direction against opposite parties to refund Rs.15,028/- towards the price of mobile  and also pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

Complaint in brief

            On 02/07/2022, the complainant placed an order for Motorola G60 mobile phone from OP No. 2 & 3.  OP 1 is the authorized venders of Motorola phone.  As per the direction of OP No. 2 & 3, complainant paid Rs.15,028/-  on 03/07/2022 towards the cost of the mobile phone.  On 05/07/2022 OP No. 2 & 3 send a mobile phone to complainant which was not functioning properly.  The complainant informed the same to OPs on 07/07/2022 and the complaint was registered and complainant was intimated to approach authorized service center and the service centre informed that the mobile phone produce before their cannot be used  and OPs provided another mobile phone to complainant which was also not functioning properly.  This was intimated to OPs without any delay.  But unfortunately OPs denied their service.  Hence this complaint.

            After filing this complaint commission has send notice to all OPs.  All OPs are entered appearance before the commission and OP1 not filed version. So OP1 is set        ex-parte.  OP2 to 4 are filed their version.

Version in brief of OP2 and 3

            Being the same legal entity a joint written statement was filed by OP No.2&3.  The OP No.2 is a company carrying the business of sale of goods manufactured/produced by others and is a registered reseller on website “flipkart.com”.  The complainant has not contacted the answering OP for raising any grievance.  The OP No.2 contended that after sale service does not lie upon them it is with the manufacturer only.  The OP No.2 is not the manufacturer of the product sold to the complainant and has no facility or knowledge to ascertain whether the delivered product or the replaced product had manufacturing defects or became defective due to complainant’s own mishandling.  The complainant is trying to make unjust enrichment by making OP NO.1 as the party.  Since OP No.2 and 3 has no liability and prayer against they will not lie and thereby dismissed the complaint.

Version of 4^th OP in brief

            The OP 4 contended that on 07/07/2022 complainant approached them wit a complaint that her phone has no voice clarity and video call, voice call facility cannot be availed.  Being the service collection point of Motorola company the OP4 can do only to send the phone to the company.   On 14/07/2022, the phone was replaced.  After that complainant never approached OP No.4 and hence OP4 is not aware the replaced phone also defective one.  The complainant registered complaint with the call centre. The OP 4 is only a collection point and hence not able to refund or replace the phone.  Hence OP No.4 prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.4.  

Due to the rival contentions raised by the OPs to the litigation, the commission decided to case the issues accordingly.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Compensation and cost?   

In order to answer the issues, the Commission called for the evidence from both parties, complainant produced documents, which is marked as Ext.A1 and A2.  A1 is the tax invoice t issued by OP No.2 dated 03/07/2022 and A2 is the service order receipt issued by OP4 dated 07/07/2022 and also MO1 produced, MO1 is the alleged mobile phone.  Complainant adduced evidence through proof affidavit and examined as Pw1. No cross examination made by any of the OPs.  From the side of OPs, there is no oral or documentary evidence.

            Let us have a clear glance into the documents produced by the parties to answer the issues raised.  For the sake of convenience both issues clubbed together here under.  As per Ext.A1 tax invoice which was issued by OP No.2 dated on 03/07/2022.  It is seen that the purchase of mobile worth Rs.15,028/- is true.  The complainant made an averment that the mobile purchased has the defect with regard to the voice quality, video calls etc.  The defect noticed by Complainant within 4 days after the purchase.  On the perusal of Ext.A2 dated 07/07/2022 issued by OP NO.4 after considering the complaint registered by complainant stating the defect as cannot be heard, silence or static.  In the version of OP No.4 itself admitted that they had replaced the phone which was obtained from manufacturer. The complainant had produced MO1 before the commission.  The complainant filed proof affidavit but no cross examination made by any of the OPs.  Moreover OP NO.2 &3 stated that they are only the registered reseller of the product on online platform.  As per Ext.A1, the warranty provided for 1 year from the date of purchase ie 03/07/2022, the warranty commence.  As per Ext.A2 dated ie within 4 days of purchase of mobile, the complaint regarding the defect registered and on 14/07/2022 complainant received another phone from the manufacturer through OP No.4.  The OP No.4 stated in the version that complainant had registered another complaint raising the same issue which her 1^st mobile has, but the complaint was registered before call centre.  Even if, this so the OP NO.4 has knowledge of defect arise 2^nd time.  From these all averments contentions and evidences.  This commission came in to a conclusion that OPs are liable to the deficiency in service.  To conclude it is seen that the defect arise during the warranty period and complainant is entitled to get compensation.  Hence both issues answered in favour of complainant.

            In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.15,028/-  towards the price of the mobile phone and also pay     Rs. 5000/-  as compensation and litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs.15,028/- carry 10% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.  Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  After the said proceedings the opposite parties are at liberty to take back the mobile phone (MO1) before the commission.

Exts.

A1-Tax Invoice

A2-Service order receipt

MO1- Mobile phone

Pw1- Complainant

      Sd/                                                                          Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER                                                   MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Assistant Registrar