DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

 Dated this the 28^th day of October 2024

Filed On: - 21.03.2023

PRESENT

Shri. D.B. Binu                                                                              Hon’ble President

Shri. V. Ramachandran                                                           Hon’ble Member

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N                                                                  Hon’ble Member

CC NO.194 OF 2023

COMPLAINANT

Abdul Hashim K. A, S/o Aliyar KM, Kurudiyil House, 414, GLPS Road, Cheranalloor P O, 682 034 Mob: 7012355259

Vs

OPPOSITE PARTY

My G, No.723, Kureekkal Arcade, opp. Lulu Mall, Edappally, 682024 Mob: 8086776688

(OPs Rep. By. Adv. Sruthi Das, Adv. Vishnu Das, Adv. Anjitha Anilkumar, Adv. Maria Neethu TJ, Adv. Anagha A.S)

FINAL ORDER

D.B. Binu, President

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant purchased an LG VELVET mobile phone for ₹36,000 from the opposite party's showroom and also bought a one-year extended warranty for ₹1,899. After using the phone for a year, the device began experiencing issues with the call sensor. The complainant contacted the showroom, where he was informed that repairing the phone would take at least a month, causing significant inconvenience.

Despite continuing to use the malfunctioning phone, additional issues arose, including problems with the camera. The complainant returned the phone to the showroom, paying ₹500 as a service charge. A week later, the opposite party offered ₹18,000 as compensation instead of repairing the phone, which the complainant declined. The opposite party then agreed to repair the phone and return it.

After several follow-ups, the complainant collected the repaired phone from the showroom. However, within 30 minutes of use, the phone shut down again. The complainant immediately returned the phone, and the opposite party advised sending it to the head office for further repairs. Despite repeated attempts by the complainant to get updates, the opposite party neither provided a replacement phone nor gave clear information on the repair status.

During this period, the complainant faced significant challenges using another person’s phone, as it involved reinstalling essential banking, work-related, and personal applications. The complainant claims that this caused considerable inconvenience and mental agony.

The complainant now seeks relief from the Consumer Commission, demanding a refund of ₹36,000 for the phone and ₹10,000 for the inconvenience, amounting to a total compensation claim of ₹46,000 from the opposite party.

2. NOTICE:

The Commission issued notice to the opposite party, but they failed to file their version within the statutory period and were consequently set ex-parte on 09-08-2023.

3. Evidence:

The complainant submitted a proof affidavit along with three documents, marked as Exhibits A1 to A3:

• Exhibit A1: Tax Invoice issued by the opposite party
• Exhibit A2: Extended Warranty Certificate issued by the opposite party
• Exhibit A3: Job Slips issued by the opposite party (2 numbers)

4. Points for Consideration:

i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the opposite parties?

iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

iv) Costs of the proceedings, if any?

 The evidence presented included an ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the complainant, and it was unchallenged by the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant's claims were considered credible and supported by the evidence. The opposite party's conscious failure to file their written version despite having received the Commission’s notice amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. The case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in its Order dated 09/10/2017 in RP No. 579/2017 (2017(4) C.P.R 590)  also held a similar stance. 

We have meticulously considered the detailed submissions of the complainant, as well as thoroughly reviewed the entire record of evidence.

i) Maintainability of the Complaint

The complaint is maintainable under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as the complainant qualifies as a consumer. The purchase of the LG Velvet mobile phone and an extended warranty from the opposite party establishes a consumer relationship between the two parties. As per the Act, the complainant is entitled to seek remedies for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the opposite party.

The extended warranty purchased by the complainant creates a binding obligation on the opposite party to repair or service the phone promptly and efficiently. The failure to provide this service constitutes a breach of the terms of the warranty. Furthermore, the documents produced by the complainant, including Exhibit A1 (Tax Invoice), Exhibit A2 (Extended Warranty Certificate), and Exhibit A3 (Job Slips), provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim. Hence, the complaint is well within the purview of the Act and qualifies for adjudication by this Commission.

ii) Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice by the Opposite Party

The complainant’s mobile phone malfunctioned after one year of usage, and the opposite party failed to provide timely repair or replacement. Multiple issues arose during the repair process, such as:

1. Delay in Repairs: The opposite party took excessive time to address the phone's defects, causing inconvenience to the complainant.
2. Failure to Repair Properly: Even after repairs, the phone malfunctioned within 30 minutes, reflecting negligent service.
3. Improper Compensation: Offering ₹18,000 instead of proper repair or replacement constitutes an unfair trade practice.

The opposite party’s conduct reflects a failure to adhere to contractual obligations under the extended warranty, constituting both deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

iii) Entitlement to Relief

• Liability of the Opposite Party: The opposite party failed to fulfil its obligations under the extended warranty, causing distress and financial loss to the complainant.

The opposite party's failure to file a reply despite receiving notice further strengthens the complainant's case. The Hon'ble National Commission has held that failure to respond within the statutory period can be treated as an admission of allegations (as per 2017 (4) CPR 590 (NC)).

While the complainant has provided substantial evidence to support his claim regarding the deficiency in service, there are certain procedural gaps:

1. The complainant did not implead the manufacturer of the mobile phone as a party to the proceedings.
2. Argument notes were not filed by the complainant to strengthen the claim.
3. No expert commission report was submitted to establish a manufacturing defect in the device.

In light of these omissions, the Commission cannot justly direct the opposite party to provide a brand-new phone or reimburse the full cost of the mobile. However, the opposite party is obligated to rectify the deficiency in service by delivering the same model of mobile phone in defect-free condition to the complainant. Additionally, the opposite party is directed to extend the warranty for one more year, ensuring the complainant receives the full benefit of the extended warranty he initially purchased.

Since the complainant incurred expenses and time pursuing this complaint, ₹5,000 is awarded as costs of the proceedings. At the heart of this complaint lies not just a defective product but the inconvenience and frustration faced by the complainant in navigating life without reliable access to his device. A mobile phone today is more than a mere communication tool—it is essential for managing financial transactions, work, and personal commitments. The opposite party’s negligence in offering timely repair or a suitable replacement not only disrupted the complainant's routine but also caused emotional distress. Being forced to depend on someone else’s phone, reinstall critical applications, and follow up repeatedly reflects a deeper issue of disregard for consumer rights and the trust placed in service providers. Businesses must recognize the human impact of such lapses, as timely and empathetic service is the backbone of customer relationships in today’s connected world.

We determine that issues (I) to (IV) are resolved in favour of the complainant due to the significant deficiency in service by the opposite party. The complainant has suffered considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses as a result of the negligence of the opposite party.

In light of the facts and circumstances, the following orders are issued:

1. The opposite party is directed to deliver the mobile phone in defect-free condition and extend the warranty by one year from the date of delivery, ensuring the complainant receives the full benefit of the originally purchased extended warranty.
2. The opposite party shall pay ₹10,000 (Ten Thousand Rupees) as compensation to the complainant for the inconvenience, mental agony, and physical hardships endured. This amount is awarded for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by the opposite party.
3. The opposite party shall pay ₹5,000 (Five Thousand Rupees) as costs for the proceedings.

The opposite party is liable to fulfil the above orders within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. If the opposite party fails to comply with the payment orders under point II, interest at the rate of 9% per annum will apply from the date of filing the complaint (21.03.2023) until full payment is made.

This order has been dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed, typed, corrected by me, and pronounced in the Open Commission.

Dated this the 28^th  day of October 2024

Sd/-

D.B. Binu, President

Sd/-

V. Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N, Member

 Forwarded/By Order,

                                                                                                                                          Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s Evidence

• Exhibit A1: Tax Invoice issued by the opposite party
• Exhibit A2: Extended Warranty Certificate issued by the opposite party
• Exhibit A3: Job Slips issued by the opposite party (2 numbers)

Opposite Parties’ Evidence

NIL

Date of Despatch

By Hand       ::

By post         ::

AKR/

Order in CC No. 194/2023

Date: 28/10/2024