IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 07thday of March, 2019.
Filed on 12-01-2018
Present
Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim,B.A,LLM (President)
2) Smt. Sheela Jacob, B.com,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.8/2018
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri.Varghese.M M/s Mobile Net Sales & Service
Anjali Nivas Thalavady
West of Gurupuram Avalookunnu P.O.
South Ariyadu Alappuzha- 688006
Alappuzha- 688006
O R D E R
SRI.E.M. MUHAMMED IBRAHIM (PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE)
This case is based on a consumer complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The averments in the complaint in short, are as follows:-
The Vivo mobile phone used by the complainant was damaged as its display was broken. The opposite party agreed to replace the original display made by Vivo company for an amount of Rs.3,000/-. In order to cure the defect the complainant entrusted the defective mobile phone to the opposite party service center on 1-1-2018. The complainant got replaced the display by paying Rs.3,000/- as agreed. However he felt a small damage on the display which was replaced by the opposite party. Hence he brought the mobile phone to Vivo service center and after verification the person doing service has told that the replaced display is duplicate and the cost of original display is only is Rs.2,400/- and 1 year warranty will also be given in case original display of Vivo company is purchased and replaced. Thereafter the complainant rushed to the opposite party and informed the above facts. But they denied. There up on the complainant demanded to issue a bill in respect of the spare parts replaced by the opposite party but they denied. According to the complainant the opposite party has deliberately deceived the complainant by replacing the duplicate of Vivo display and also by charging excessive costs and hence there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The complainant further prays to direct opposite party to replace the original by removing the duplicate and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and costs of the proceedings.
3. In response of the notice the opposite party entered appearance and filed version raising the following contentions:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. However the opposite party would admit that the complainant approached him and entrusted Vivo mobile phone for replacing the display that he replaced the same and charged Rs.3,000/- from the complainant but his institution is not a recognized service center of a Vivo company and by fully understanding the fact that the complainant approached his service center and entrusted the mobile phone to replace the display. However after replacing the display the mobile phone was fully in a working condition and that fact was convinced by the complainant and received back the same hence the complainant has not alleged deficiency in service in the complainant. While entrusting the mobile phone on 01-01-2018 the opposite party has issued job sheet stating the terms and conditions and by accepting the conditions in the job sheet he got replaced the display. In the circumstances the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs sought for in the complainant. The opposite party has promptly made service in the mobile phone entrusted to him and returned the same to the complainant and by convincing the fact the complainant taken back the mobile phone from his service centre. Thereafter if at all any damage has been caused to the mobile phone it was due to the misuse of the same by the complainant and he is not responsible for the said damage. The complaint has been filed with malafied intention to obtain free repair of the damaged mobile phone. The opposite party further prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for the consideration are:-
Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party.
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as sought for in the complaint.
Reliefs and costs.
5. When the case was taken up for recording evidence the complainant present and filed proof affidavit and got marked as Ext.A1 series document. But the opposite party who filed the written version by himself has not turned up nor cross examined the complainant. Hence the opposite party has been set exparte.
6. Heard the complainant perused the records. The main grievance of the complainant is that he brought his damaged Vivo mobile phone for replacing the display at the opposite party’s service center on 1-1-2018. The opposite party made him to believe that Rs.3,000/- is required to replace the original display of Vivo company. Accordingly the complainant paid Rs.3,000/- and got the damaged display replaced by original display of Vivo company make. But on verification of the display replaced by the opposite party in the authorized service center of the Vivo company it was understood that replaced display is not the original display of Vivo company make and that the original display would cost only Rs.2,400/- and if original display is replaced warranty for 1 year also will be given. The complainant has also not issued any bill for the replacement of the display board.
7. The fact that the opposite party replaced the display and receive Rs.3,000/- from the complainant has been admitted by the opposite party but he would content that he is not authorized service center of Vivo company and he has never made the complainant to believe that he would replace the original vivo display. He has issued job sheet no.007 dated on 1-1-2018 by stating the terms and conditions and by accepting the terms and conditions of the said job sheet he entrusted the mobile phone for replacing the display that he has also made necessary service in the mobile phone and returned the same after convincing the service done by him that and the complainant was also convinced that it mobile set was in a working condition after replacing the display. It is further alleged that by fully understanding the fact that his shop is not the authorized service center of Vivo, the complainant entrusted the mobile phone to replace the display. Though such a contention is raised by the opposite party in the written version the complainant has not denied the above facts in his proof affidavit. It is true that Ext.A1 series documents would show that the display is not the original manufactured by the Vivo company but it is a duplicate one and the cost of the display is Rs.2,400/- only. The complainant has no case that he entrusted the mobile phone to replace the display under warranty therefore the opposite party is entitled to realize service charge also. In the circumstances realizing Rs.3000/- for replacing display and making service of the mobile phone cannot be said to be too to excess nor it can be found that there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
8. It is further to be pointed out that in the job sheet the price required for the replacement of any part of the mobile phone and service charges would be specified. In the circumstances the non production of the job sheet issued by the opposite party, would go against the case of the complainant without producing the job sheet the complainant is not expected to say that Rs.3,000/- realized by the opposite party for replacing the display and making service is too much.
9. The contention for the opposite party is that the service center is not the authorized service center of Vivo company the complainant has not denied the same. The name of the institution of the opposite party itself would not indicate that it is not a service centre of Vivo company. It is also clear from the contentions of the opposite party in his written version that he has not made the complainant to believe that he would replace the display by the original display board manufactured by the Vivo company and there is no chance for the same as he is not authorized service center of the Vivo company. The above contention also remains undisputed in the proof affidavit filed by the complainant. In the circumstances even if the complainant is not cross examined by the opposite parties and no independent evidence has been adduced by the opposite party the case of the complainant is not proved. Case of the complainant that the opposite party has committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is not proved especially when the opposite party has issued a job sheet to the complainant indicating the costs, labour charges etc. and realized the amount shown in the job sheet. In the circumstances we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs prayed for. The points answered accordingly.
Point No.3
In the result the complaint stands dismissed. The parties shall suffer their respective costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 7th day of March, 2019.
Sd/-Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim (President)
Sd/-Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 Series - Service jobsheet dtd 04-01-2018 and 05-10-2018
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
