BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the wife and husband under section 35 of C.P.Act 2019 (herein after referred as “Act”) against the OPs for the following reliefs.

1. To direct/order the OP to return back the mobile, in question, in its functional status to the satisfaction of complainants and also to refund the paid amount for Rs.8,850/- with statutory interests over its, w.e.f date of its payment i.e., 18.11.2021 to these complainants.
2. To grant an award of compensation as and on date, for Rs.2,86,850/- as per details of losses described below, being incurred by the complainants due to aforesaid rendered deficient services, as described above by the OP.
3. To grant cost of the case and another reliefs as deem fit and proper.
4. Any other orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit.
5. To pay the cost of this proceedings.

2.     The case of the complaint in brief is as follows:

The complainants got repaired their iphone XR-64GB, white through OP by paying Rs.8,850/- under invoice dated 18.11.2021.The OP returned the mobile with three months warrantee with the assurance that during these three months, the complainants were entitled to free service.

3. The warrantee of three months period came to be lapsed on 18.02.2022, but once against they handed over the mobile in December 2021 to repair the mobile.  Even though OP received the mobile, OP failed to return the mobile.
4. It is further case of the complainants that despite repeated messages including lawyer notice dated 13.04.2022 the OP failed to return the mobile.  The complainants have last the saved data of their mobile.  Ultimately complainants have purchased new mobile.  They requested to direct the OP to pay Rs.2,86,850/- for deficiency of service.
5. Despite receipt of notice with copy of complaint, the OP failed to appear before this Commission.  Therefore OP has been placed exparte.
6. The complainants have filed affidavit evidence and rely on 11 documents. Perused the records.
7. The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of the OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs mentioned in the complaint?
3. What  order?

8. Our answer to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1 :- Affirmative in part

      Point No.2 :- Affirmative in part

       Point No.3:- As per the final order.

                                REASONS

9. Point No.1 and 2:    Ex.P4 tax invoice indicates that the complainant 1 Jeuty Baruah purchased the mobile Apple iPhone XR-64GB, white through Amazon for Rs.59,900/-.  The complainant No.2 is not the owner of this mobile.  Ex.P1 is the certificate u/s 65B of Complainant No.2 Pranjal Protim Borah.  Ex.P2 indicates that the complainant No.1 delivered the above mobile for repair purpose by paying Rs.8,850/-.  Ex.P3 indicates that the complainant No.2 paid Rs.8,850/- to the OP through his bank account.  Ex.P5 is the reply of Government of India, Ministry of consumer affairs to the complainant No.2. Ex.P6 is the grievances of complainant No.2.  Ex.P7 is the correspondences of the complainant No.2 with OP1.  The correspondences indicate that the OP failed to return the mobile.  Ultimately the complainant by issuing Ex.P8 legal notice dated 12.04.2022 called upon the OP to pay Rs.59,900/-  cost of the mobile, Rs.8,850/- service charges and legal expenses of Rs.11,501/- and sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation.  Ex.P9 is the postal receipt.  Ex.P10 indicates that complainant No.2 has purchased another mobile i.e.,  Apple iPhone XR for Rs.59,900/- on 25.06.2019 and Ex.P2 indicates that the complainant No.2 gave the same mobile to OP for service purpose on 18.11.2021.  It is the specific case of the complainants that the repair was not proper and complainant gave the same mobile for repair purpose within warranty period of three months.  But Ex.P2 invoice does not indicate that OP had furnished three months free warrantee period from 18.11.2021.
10. It is our experience that electric goods like mobiles have not been fetching resale value.  The complainants have used the mobile for two years five months from 25.06.2019, and they handed over same to OP for repair purpose on 18.11.2021.  Under such circumstances the complainants i.e., complainant No.1 particularly is not entitled the price of the mobile is Rs.59,900/-  in view of the reduction of electric goods from time to time. The reduced value of this mobile is quantified at Rs.10,000/- only.
11. OP neither carried the repairs properly nor returned the instrument.  Under such circumstances, OP is liable to refund Rs.8,850/- collected towards repair charges.
12. The complainants claim Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of data.  The complainants have not produced any evidence to accept their case that value of last data is Rs.1,00,000/-.  In the absence of such material evidence, we cannot accept the say of the complainants about loss of data.
13. Complainants claim Rs.40,449/- towards purchase of new mobile.  When the old mobile itself had no much saleable value after two years five months and when we have taken the view that the value of the old mobile after two years five months as Rs.10,000/-, the complainants are not right in claiming Rs.40,449/- the value of new mobile.
14. The OP neither returned the mobile nor carried out proper repair.  Under such circumstances, the compensation is quantified at Rs.5,000/- the complainant claim Rs.36,501/- towards legal fees. But this say is not proved through any documentary evidence.  The complainants have not produced any receipt for having paid Rs.36,501/- to their advocate.  The complainants have not paid any fees on the complaint.  The complaint has been filed by the complainants in person.  Therefore cost of litigation is quantified at Rs.2,500/- including Rs.500/- against legal notice.  Under such circumstances the complainant is entitled an amount mentioned above.  Accordingly we answer point NO.1 and 2.
15. POINT NO.3: In view of the discussion referred above, the complainant requires to be allowed in part against the OP.  OP is liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of old mobile, iPhone XR, Rs.8,850/- collected towards the cost of repair, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,500/- as cost of litigation including Rs.500/-  as cost of legal notice. we proceed to pass the following;

                             O R D E R                            

1. The complaint is Allowed in part.
2. OP shall pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of old mobile, Rs.8,850/- towards cost of repair, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,500/- as cost of litigation including Rs.500/- against the legal notice.
3. OP shall comply this order within 45 days from the date of this order and in case of failure the OP shall pay interest at 9% p.a., on Rs.23,850/- till payment after expiry of 60 days.
4. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 20^TH day of September, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1 : NIL

HAV*