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 OP’s to refund the value of the mobile phone Rs.25,499/- and the GDOT protection plus plan worth Rs.2790/- along with  compensation of Rs.50,000/-  to the complainant  for   the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s.

  The brief of the complaint :

   The complainant had purchased a Redmi note 12Pro(IME No.863393068359012) mobile phone on 19/3/2023 for  an amount of Rs.25,499/- from 2^nd OP.  The complainant had  purchased the mobile phone only for his brother and he is working as a service technician and for his job  a good mobile phone is necessary for his work.  At the time of purchasing  the mobile phone , the OP assured that the phone availed the insurance coverage GD OT protection  plus plan worth Rs.2790/- also.  The complainant  paid some amount by cash and for the remaining availed finance  from Bajaj finance limited in EMI scheme.  But within 2 weeks of purchase the phone became defective that the flash light was automatically turning off while  using  the flash.  Immediately the complainant informed the matter to 2^nd OP.  Then 2^nd OP directed the complainant to produce the phone before 3^rd OP, the service centre. On 6/4/2023 the complainant  approached  3^rd OP and  submitted the mobile phone  before them. Then 3^rd OP informed  that the phone was some mother board issue and need to be replaced and take 5 days also.  Thereafter so many times the complainant enquired the  repairing of the mobile phone or replace a new mobile phone by OP’s.  But OP’s are not  cured the defect or replace a new mobile phone within the warranty period also.  The complainant purchased the mobile phone only for  his brothers job improvement for using the mobile phone.  But the defect of the phone and non usage of the phone the complainant  and his brother cause such mental strain and hardship.  Then the  complainant informed the matter to 1^st OP also.  But no response from  all OP’s.  The act of   OP’s the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s.  Hence the complaint.

           After filing the complaint, notice  issued to all  OP’s . All  OP’s received the notice and not appeared before the commission and not filed  version .The commission had to hold that the OP’s have no version as such  this case came to be proceed against  OP’s  are set  exparte. 

    Even though the OP’s have remained ex-parte it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by her against the OP’s.  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 4 documents marking them  as Exts.A1 to A4 (series).  The complainant  was examined as PW1.   So the opposite parties 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 on 19/3/2023 for the use of his brother’s job. The complainant paid Rs.25,499/- to 2^nd OP and shown in the  tax invoice and marked as Ext.A1.  At the time of purchasing the mobile phone having  an insurance coverage and to pay Rs.2790/- for obtaining  GDOT protection  plus certificate.  The certificate also produced  by the complainant before the commission and marked as Ext.A2.  In Ext.A3 is the service order issued by 3^rd OP dtd.6//4/2023 the service  information fault description –while playing  games mobile Hot/heating issue.  So it is clear that the mobile phone is  in  defective within short time of purchase the OP’s are liable to repair the defects within the warranty period.  But the OP’s are not cured the defects or replaced a new one.  In Ext.A4(series) the statement of account for Bajaj Finance limited to shows that the complainant paid the EMI scheme amount through her SBI account for instalment amount of Rs.2550/-.  According to the complainant failure to repair the mobile phone the OP’s are directly  bound to redressal  the grievance caused to the complainant.  Therefore we hold that the OP’s are jointly and severally liable to refund the value of mobile phone Rs.25,499/- and Rs.2790/- as the insurance  plan coverage to the complainant  along with  Rs.10,000/- 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  jointly and severally liable to refund the value of mobile phone Rs.25,499/- and Rs.2790/-  the insurance  plan coverage to the complainant  along with  Rs.10,000/- 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.25,499/- carries interest@ 12% per annum  from the date of order till realization , failing which the   complainant is  at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1- Tax invoice

A2- My GDOT protection plus certificate

A3- service order

A4(series)- Bajaj Finserv loan documents(2 in Nos.)

PW1-Arunima Raja.T.R-  complainant.

Sd/                                                             Sd/                                                   Sd/  

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                     MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                Sajeesh K.P

eva                                                      /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR