O R D E R.

By Smt. Beena. M,  Member:-

This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-   The Complainant had purchased a Mobile Phone XTI 643 MOTO G4 PLUS 32 GB WHITE MOTOROLA Mobile bearing No. 351891083955978 from Second Opposite Party, who is the dealer of First Opposite Party manufacturing Company on        30-06-2017 for an amount of Rs,15,500/- which had one year warranty.  According to the Complainant, after some days of its use, the mobile phone was functioning defectively and the phone started bending and not fit for use. The software of the phone was not working properly.  The Complainant contacted the Second Opposite Party and reported the defects of the mobile phone and he had handed over the said defective phone to the Second Opposite Party for rectifying the defect or to replace the said mobile with brand new.   As per the direction of the Second Opposite Party, the Complainant had contacted the Third Opposite Party, who is the service personnel of the First and Second Opposite Parties. They inspected the mobile phone and issued Moto Service Record identifying the problem as power off, video calling  problem etc.

          3. The Complainant further submitted that he is an Engineer by occupation and the phone is necessary for his job and many data were feeded in the phone.  Later, the Third Opposite Party contacted the Complainant and reported that the defective functioning of the phone and its bend was caused on account of the misuse by the Complainant and hence the company and dealer are not at all responsible for any such defect, and further they told that they are not willing to replace a new phone for the use of the Complainant.  The Complainant had been using the device with utmost care and caution and no damage had been caused to the phone in any manner. The act on the part of the Opposite Parties is unfair trade practice and first Opposite Party is liable for manufacturing defect of the phone.  The Complainant had incurred heavy mental stress and monetary loss and strain.  The Complainant is a consumer as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.  First and second Opposite Parties are liable to replace  the phone by taking back the defective one.  The Complainant caused to sent a notice to the opposite Parties and the notices were received  but not acted upon.  Hence, the Complainant filed the above number complaint praying for pay back the  amount paid for purchasing the mobile phone of Rs.15,500/- and Rs.10,000/- towards damages, and Rs.10,000/- for unfair trade practices with 12 % interest thereon.

          4. After the admission of the complaint, the Commission issued summons to the Opposite Parties.  But they were not appeared and the Commission set them     ex-parte. 

          5. The Complainant authorized his father to adduce evidence before the Commission. So the father of the Complainant Mr. Joseph filed Chief Affidavit and the documents produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A5 and MO1 also marked.   Ext.A1 is the invoice regarding the purchase of the mobile phone from the second Opposite Party. Ext.A2 is the warranty card issued by the first Opposite Party which shows that the product has one year warranty. Ext A3 is the lawyer notice issued by the Complainant to Opposite Parties dated 19/02/2018. Ext. A4 is the acknowledgement card issued by the First Opposite Party and Ext. A5 is the acknowledgement card issued by the Second Opposite Party. On the perusal of the above documents, it revealed the genuineness of the complaint of the Complainant. It is for the Complainant to prove that there was a defect in mobile phone. Now on going through the Moto Service Record issued by the service personnel of the first and second Opposite Parties it is seen  that complaint was regarding power off problem and video calling problem. Thus it is not in dispute that the mobile purchased by the Complainant had started  problems immediately after purchase. Warranty of mobile was for one year and so it is the duty of manufacturer to see that customer expect that mobile  purchased by him remain defect free during warranty period.  On the basis of Moto Service Record itself it is evident that mobile purchased by the Complainant had started giving problems. We are of the considered opinion that the Opposite Parties were negligent and irresponsible, they did not remove the defect from the mobile phone of the Complainant for which they were the duty bound as the phone had one year warranty. All these acts of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Here the Opposite Parties had not challenged the complaint. Complainant proved his case undoubtedly.  The Commission found that there is  deficiency of service, unfair trade practice on the part of the First and Second Opposite Parties and the Complainant sustained difficulties and mental stress. Hence the Complainant deserves to get compensation also.    

          In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.

1.   The 1^st Opposite Party is directed to pay cost of mobile phone of   

  Rs.15,500/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand five hundred only) along with 9%   

  interest   from the date of purchase till payment  to the Complainant.

2.  The Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) jointly and severally to the Complainant as compensation within one month from the date of service of this order.

© The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand

     only)    towards cost (damages).

3. The Complainant is directed to return the MO1 to the Opposite Party No.1.

This order to be complied within one month from the date of order, failing

which the whole amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9%per annum from the date of order till realization.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by

me and Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30^th  day of April 2022.

Date of filing:26.03.2018.

                                                                    PRESIDENT:   Sd/-

                                                                   MEMBER    :   Sd/-

                                                                   MEMBER    :   Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1.           Nithin Joseph                            Complainant.                  

Witness for the Opposite Party:

Nil.   

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1.              Tax Invoice.                             dt:30.06.2017.

A2.              Warranty Card.                        

A3.              Copy of Lawyer Notice.            dt:19.02.2018.

A4.              Acknowledgment.

A5.              Acknowledgment.

MO1.          Mobile Phone.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil