SRI. SAJEESH.K.P     : MEMBER

    The  Complainant has filed this complaint  under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking direction against the  OPs  to refund an amount of Rs. 12990/- towards the price of mobile phone and also pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

     The complainant in brief

       On 18/10/2019, complainant purchased a mobile phone worth Rs.12990/- from 1^st OP’s shop believing the words of latter that it  is very useful for  online classes since complainant has 3 children.  The complainant is a cooli worker by profession and  not in a  position  to purchase expensive and therefore  obtained a loan from  HDBF.  Unfortunately, complainant  enjoyed the service of phone for six months from the date of purchase.  At the time of purchase of said mobile, OP assured one year warranty .  On intimating complaint, OP directed complainant to approach Appasons mobile Gallery and on 20/5/2020, complainant got his mobile phone back.  But the service of mobile phone was again denied to complainant due to the frequent complaints arose  even after repair.  The OP lagged  to rectify the complaint in order to get over the  warranty period and on 19/1/2021, OP received complainant’s phone and entrusted to ‘Café 4 G’ which situates just opposite to Maharani Jwellery.  Thereafter complainant approached OP on several occasions but  ended in mental agony and  financial loss.  Further more complainant’s children faced difficulty to attend their classes.  The deficiency in service from the part of OP, complainant faced hardship and hence this complaint.

       After filing this  complaint, commission has sent notice to OP and the  OP is entered appearance before the commission and filed his version accordingly.  After filing the version complainant  filed impleading petition to implead  supplementary OPs 2&3.  Commission has allow the petition and issue notice to proposed OPs 2&3 which was duly served.  The 2^nd OP has not appeared before the commission and not filed any version.  Hence commission held that 2^nd OP has no version and the case proceed against 2^nd OP as set exparte.  3^rd OP appeared before the commission and filed his version.

Version of 1^st  OP in brief:

    The  1^st OP raised the contention of non joinder of necessary parties since the manufacturer of Nokia mobile phone and  approved service center of Nokia phone was not made as parties.  The 1^st OP admitted the purchase of mobile phone and it became  defective within 6 months and gave instruction to approach Appasons Mobile Gallery.  The OP further more contended that complainant never approached  thereafter to raise any  complaint.  The OP never advised anybody to approach unauthorized service providers and OP was only a dealer and only the manufacturer has the liability to provide after sale service.  The 1^st OP never treated complainant’s in a negligent manner.  There is no reason to drag the  OP to a complaint and  no service deficiency practiced  by OP against complainant. Hence the complaint is  liable to be dismissed.

Version of 3^rd  OP:

   3^rd  OP admitted that complainant approached  once and they  repaired the device  but after that he never approached  him  or not produced any job sheet  number.  3^rd OP contended that the complainant took the phone to some other 3^rd party to get the phone checked.  If the phone is  within the warranty period, the complainant can approach 3^rd OP and 3^rd OP would have found a solution .  As an authorized service center, 3^rd OP can work only according to the company policy and not liable unlessand  until the phone bought before 3^rd OP and hence 3^rd OP is not liable to give any compensation  as prayed in the complaint.

   Due to the rival contentions raised by the OP to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues  accordingly.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of  OPs?
2. Whether there is any  compensation  &  cost to the complainant?

       In order to answer the issues, the commission  called evidence from both parties. The  complainant produced documents which is marked as Exts.A1 to A5.  Ext.A1 is the tax invoice issued by 1^st  OP dtd.18/9/2019.  Ext.A2 is the delivery note issued by 3^rd OP dtd.20/5/2020.  Ext.A3 is the service slip issued by Café 4G dtd.19/1/2021.  Ext.A4 is the copy of lawyer notice, Ext.A5 is the acknowledgment card .  The complainant adduced evidence  through proof  affidavit and examined as PW1.  No oral or documentary evidence from the side of OPs.

   Let us have a clear glance into the documents and evidences filed before the commission to answer the issues.

Issue No.1&2

   On the  perusal of documents, Ext.A1, the purchase bill of mobile phone is admitted by 1^st OP and hence no dispute with regard to the purchase.  According to Ext.A2, which was issued by 3^rd OP, it is seen that the alleged phone is under warranty during the period of  May 2020 when complainant approached 3^rd OP and the  complaint mentioned in the delivery note ‘start up completely dead’ and the service completed.  After that Ext.A3 which is issued by Café 4G a service center, stated  that the complaint of phone as ‘Dead’.  It is seen that date of Ext.A3 is 19/1/2021. According to complaint and Ext.A1 it is seen that complainant purchased phone on 18/9/2019 and  the phone has one year warranty and no warranty card was produced by complainant to peruse.  Ext.A2 issued by 3^rd OP admitted that on 20/5/2020 the phone was under warranty.  If the mobile has one year warranty as per Ext.A3, the phone given to Café 4G was not covered by warranty.  The service slip issued by Café 4 G was on 19/1/2021.

   Even then, the commission has to look into the evidence that the mobile phone became defective under warranty period and thereafter complainant produced Ext.A3 from which it is clear that defect of his phone persists.  Hence, the complainant’s hardship  is revealed.  Moreover, during the cross-examination of complainant , 1^st OP specifically suggested that  OPs 2&3 are liable to the defect if any and complainant stated that he approached Café 4G on the advice of 1^st OP during the  cross.  Furthermore, the alleged phone is with complainant and he faced hardship due to the defect.  On the basis of available evidence the commission came into a conclusion that the averments with regard to the defect is true and there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and hence all opposite parties are liable to provide proper service.  Hence  issue No.1&2 are answered in favour of complainant.

       In the result complaint is allowed in part, the  opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.6000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation  to the complainant  within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs.6000/- carry  with 9% interest  per annum from the date of order till realization.   Failing which complainant is at liberty to file execution application against opposite parties as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1-Tax invoice

A2-Delivery note

A3-service slip

A4-copy of lawyer notice

A5- Acknowledgment card

PW1-Muhasmmed Rafi.T.P-complainant

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR