D.O.F:20/03/2021
D.O.O:20/12/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.68/2021
Dated this, the 20th day of December 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Bijo
Kuriyathanam
West Eleri
Perumbatta- P.O :Complainant
Kasaragod - 671314
And
My G Future
Akbar Building
Kottacheri, Kanhangad : Opposite Party
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G: MEMBER
The complainant purchased Samsung MO 13 Galaxy phone from Opposite Party on 26/12/2020. But the complainant could not use it as it is always out of range. The complainat changed the sim and tried to use it but the condition was same and but he was unable to use it. The complainant then approached Opposite Party with complaint and the Opposite Party promised to repair the phone and give after one month. When he asked for replacement, Opposite Party opined that his new mobile will get only Rs. 1000/-complainant kept the mobile expecting replacement. As he approached Opposite Party within 30 days of purchase, he expected for replacement. The complainant filed this complaint before this commission as Opposite Party evaded from either rectifying the error or replacement of mobile. The negligent act of Opposite Party caused loss and mental agony to the complainant.
Notice of Opposite Party served, but he did not turn up, name of Opposite Party called absent set exparte..
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination, tax invoice issued by Opposite Party, produced is marked as Ext A1.
The main issues raised raised for consideration are :-
- Whether Opposite Party rectified the mobile within warranty period? Is there any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party?
- Whether complaint is entitled for relief?
- If so what is the relief?
For convenience issue No:1 and 2 can be discussed together.
Complainant purchased a mobile phone MO 13 Galaxy MO1 Core 1GB + 16GB black Samsung mobile tax invoice of the same is produced as Ext A1. As per Ext A1 complainant purchased the mobile on 26/12/2020 for Rs. 4999/-. As per the complaint even after purchase complainant could not use it. Complainant entrusted the mobile for repair with Opposite Party. When he requested for replacement, Opposite Party informed that his mobile will be worth Rs.1000/- only. The mobile set sold by Opposite Party on 26/12/21 for Rs. 4999/- which admittedly worth Rs. 1000/- amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Opposite Party failed to repair the mobile set in a useful condition. This illegal act of Opposite Party caused severe loss and mental agony to the complainant. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. The act of Opposite Party caused loss and mental agony to the complaint . Hence he is entitled for compensation.
Issue No.3
Complaint spend an amount of Rs.4999/- for mobile set, but he could not use it even for a single day. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, complaint is entitled for an amount of Rs. 3000/- as compensation with refund of the price of the mobile.
Therefore complaint is allowed directing Opposite Party to refund Rs. 4999/- with 9% interest from 26/12/2020 till the date of payment with Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of this Judgement.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Tax invoice
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
