SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

     This is a  complaint filed by the complainant  U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the OPs to  replace the mobile phone with a new one or to pay the value of mobile phone Rs.14,000/- to the complainant along with  Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant for the  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice  on the part of OPs.

  The brief of the complaint :

       The complainant had purchased a Vivo Y22 mobile phone from 1^st OP on 13/1/2023 for an amount of Rs.14,000/-.  After 3 days of purchase the mobile phone began to hang and automatically gets switched off frequently.  Then the complainant approached to 1^st OP on 16/1/2023 to cure the defects of the phone.  Then 1^st OP inspected the mobile phone and  informed the complainant that there is some problem with the software of the phone and to rectify an application has to be installed and the same day 1^st OP installed the application  and after 1 hour handed over  the mobile phone to the complainant.  After repairing the mobile phone on 16/1/2023 the  hanging problem of the phone was not rectified and  started to show the same  complaint.  Then after 2 days the complainant approached 1^st OP for the same problem and 1^st OP asked the complainant to approach 2^nd OP who is the service centre of the above mobile phone.  Then the complainant approached to 2^nd OP and 2^nd OP also reinstalled the soft ware and gave it back to the complainant.  But the problem is not rectified.  Again on 1/2/2023 the complainant approached to 2^nd OP for the same problem.  On that day 1^st OP opened  the mobile phone and after checking the phone he informed that the mother board of the mobile phone has to be changed and  2^nd OP also stated that the display of the phone has to be changed. The changing of mother board and display, the cost incurred more than Rs.9000/-.  At that time the complainant states that she purchased the mobile phone by obtaining a loan from M/s Bajaj Finance and the phone is having manufacturing defect and the OPs have to be replaced with a new one within the warranty period.  The complainant submits that immediately after the purchase of the mobile phone,it became defective and the  OPs are not ready to cure the defect with free of cost within the warranty period.  The act of OPs the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the complaint.

    After filing the complaint, notice  issued to  both OPs .   After receiving notice the OPs are not  appeared before the commission  and not filed version. The  commission had to hold that the OPs have no version and as such this case came to be proceed against the  OPs are  set  exparte.

    Even though the OPs have remained ex-parte it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by her against the OPs.  Hence the complainant  was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents.  Accordingly the  complainant has chosen to produce  her affidavit along with 3 documents marked as Exts.A1 to A3. The complainant  was examined as PW1.  So the OPs remain absent in this case.  At the end the Commission heard the case on merit.

    Let us have a clear glance at the relevant documents.   The complainant had purchased the mobile phone from 1^st OP on 13/1/2023 for an amount of Rs.14,000/- to 1^st OP.  The tax invoice is marked as Ext.A1.  Thereafter on 16/1/2023 and 1/2/2023 the complainant approached to OPs for repair the mobile phone, the service record is marked as Ext.A2.  Ext.A3 is the warranty card.  So it is clear that the mobile phone is defective within the warranty period.  So the OPs are liable to cure the defects within the warranty period with free of cost.  But the OPs failed to do so.  According to the complainant failure to replace the mobile phone with a new mobile phone, the OPs are directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant.  Therefore we hold that  the OPs are liable to replace the mobile phone with a new one or refund the value of  mobile phone Rs.14,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.7000/- as compensation  for mental agony caused to the  complainant and  Rs.3000/- as litigation cost.

           In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing  the opposite parties 1&2 jointly and severally  liable to replace the mobile phone  or to refund the value of  mobile phone worth Rs.14,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.7000/- as compensation  for mental agony caused to the  complainant and  Rs.3000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order.  In default, the amount of Rs.14,000/- carries interest@ 12% per annum  from the date of order till realization.  If the opposite parties are fail to comply the order, the   complainant is  at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  After compliance of the said proceedings the opposite parties are at liberty to take back the mobile phone  from the complainant.

Exts:

A1- Tax invoice

A2- Delivery receipt

A3-warranty card

PW1-Naveena .K.P- complainant.

Sd/                                                   Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR