Kerala

Idukki

CC/81/2019

Jaya sasi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Muthoot Finance LDT - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jun 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :28/06/2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 23^rd day of June 2022

Present :

SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI.AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.81/2021

Between

Complainant : Jayan P.K.,

Puthenpurackal House,

Karimkunnam P.O., Nallappara,

Idukki District.

(By Adv.K.M.Sanu)

And

Opposite Party : 1 . The Manager,

ALPHA RADIOS, 1900,

Chandini Chowk, New Delhi 110 006.

2 . The Manager,

Flipkart Internet (P) Ltd.,

Building Alyssa Outer Ring Road,

Bangaluru 560 103.

(By Adv.Anish S.)

3 . The Managing Director,

I KALL, C 5 Sector 10,

Noida (UP) 201 301.

 

O R D E R

SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

Facts of the complaint are briefly stated hereunder:-

.
1 . Complainant had purchased 'I Kall K 900' Mobile Phone which is manufactured by 3^rd opposite party from 1^st opposite party on first week of January 2021. The mobile phone was ordered through 2^nd opposite party as online platform and it was delivered by 1^st opposite party to the house of complainant.

 

 

 

(Cont.....2)

 

-2-

 

2 . Complainant had paid Rs.5299/- as price of the Mobile Phone. 1^st opposite party had reported that the phone has 1 year warranty and continued after sales service. He had also, informed complainant that service centre is in town near to complainant.

 

3 . But, after two months from the date of purchase, the phone had fully stopped. For repairing the phone, complainant searched in internet about the service centre at Thodupuzha town. But, he did not get details regarding it in the internet. Later, complainant was informed from previous service engineer at Vaikam that repairing of the phone is not possible. Opposite party was selling low quality mobile phone to complainant. The mobile phone was used by complainant only for 2 months. 1^st opposite party sold bad quality product to complainant and has not given any service to repair the defective mobile phone. This is deficiency in service and misrepresentations made earlier amount to unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, he prays for following reliefs.

 

(a) Opposite parties may be directed to refund the price of product Rs.5299/-. Also may be directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation to complainant.

 

4 . Complaint was admitted and notice was sent which was served upon opposite parties. 2^nd opposite party has filed written version. 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties have not appeared before the Commission. So, they were called absent and set exparte.

 

5 . Complainant filed an application for marking documents which were produced by him and removing 2^nd opposite party from party array. Complainant has also stated in this application that he is bedridden due to fall from tree and his both legs are paralysed. Therefore, he is not able to come before the Commission and to give evidence. Hence, complainant prayed that the documents which were produced by him may be marked.

 

 

 

(Cont.....3)

 

-3-

 

6 . After perusing the documents, Commission has allowed the application. Therefore, 2^nd opposite party was deleted from the complaint and Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 were marked. P1 is Tax invoice, P2 is 'I Kall' user manual and P3 is copy of

certificate issued from Taluk head quarters hospital, Thodupuzha for proving his disability.

 

7 . The points which arise for consideration are

 

(a) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

 

(b) If so, what reliefs he is entitled to ?

 

8 . We have heard the counsel for complainant and perused the documents. Complainant has purchased 'I Kall K 900 Mobile Phone from 1^st opposite party on 03/01/2021 as per tax invoice ie, Ext.P1 and he has paid Rs.5299/- as price of the mobile phone. Complainant has also alleged that mobile phone was defective there was deficiency in service in not repairing the phone and misrepresentation regarding quality of goods and deficiency in service. Proof affidavit filed by complainant along with documents have not been challenged this proved the case of complainant. Hence we find that there is deficiency in service in also that the mobile phone was not of the quality represented by opposite parties. Hence we find that complainant is entitled for the refund of price paid by him for the mobile phone, which is Rs.5299/- along with 12% interest from date of petition, a compensation of Rs.5000/- and litigation cost coming Rs.3000/- Point No.(a) is answered accordingly.

 

Point No.(b)

 

In the result complaint is allowed in part as hereunder. 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties are directed to refund price of mobile phone Rs.5299/- along with 12% interest from the date of petition till payment/realisation and also directed

 

(Cont.....4)

-4-

 

to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost to complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which compensation amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of order, till its realisation.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 23^rd day of June 2022.

 

Sd/-

SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Tax invoice

Ext.P2 - I Kall user manual

Ext.P3 - Copy of certificate issued from Taluk head quarters hospital, Thodupuzha

for proving his disability.

 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Forwarded by Order

 

 

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR