SRI. SAJEESH.K.P    : MEMBER

    The complainant has  filed this complaint  under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019,  seeking direction against the  OPs to  Rs.14,000/- towards the price of  mobile  phone and also pay Rs.8,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

Complaint in brief :-

     According to  complaint on 21/6/2023, the  complainant purchased Oppo A 574/64 mobile phone  worth Rs.14,000/-  after availing loan from Madayi Co-op Bank, from 1^st OP.  But on 25/6/2023 the complainant found that the said phone is not functioning and seen some blurred lines on the display and on 28/6/2023, the complainant approached 1^st OP to  complaint  and the  mobile was sent  to service center of Oppo phone  and on 8/7/2023 he enquired about the  defect sustained by the mobile  phone and  handed over the charger to them.  To the dismay of complainant, on 11/7/2023 the service center  informed that the phone cannot be rectified or replaced as the damage was caused from complainant’s mishandling  and can be  rectified only when  the complainant is ready to  pay the  amount to  change the display.  According to the complainant, the defect arise within the warranty period and also the  defect arise within one month from the date of purchase.  Even after paying the full consideration, the OP failed to provide the  service and the complainant  suffered hardship and hence this complaint.

           After filing the complaint, commission sent notice  to all OPs. All OPs notice duly served. 1^st OP is not appeared before the commission and not filed any version.  So the 1^st OP is set exparte. OPs2&3 entered  appearance before  the commission and filed their version accordingly.

Version of  OP.NO.2 in brief:

    The 2^nd  OP denied the entire averments made by  complainant except those admitted specifically.  2^nd OP is a private limited company, having separate existence and engaged in the business of providing service to the mobile handsets manufactured by Oppo mobiles.  The manufacturer Oppo Mobiles(India) Pvt.Ltd  provide 1 year warranty subject to the terms and conditions.  The warranty terms and conditions also specify not the benefit of warranty will not extend to the self inflicted damage or careless  use of the customer.  Moreover, the  complaint is  bad for non-joinder of parties such  Oppo India Mobiles Pvt Ltd is the manufacturer of handset  not the 2^nd OP.  The 2^nd OP contended that when the handset was taken for service, it is found that it had scratches and other physical damages and hence the warranty conditions was rejected.  Therefore, the complaint has no merits and hence liable to be dismissed.

Version in brief of 3^rd OP:

   The 3^rd OP denied the entire averment made by the complainant except those  admitted  specifically.  The 3^rd OP is not aware of the transaction between complainant and other OPs and also not a party to the transaction.  The complainant neither purchased goods nor availed any service for consideration from 3^rd OP.  Hence 3^rd OP is an unnecessary party.  The complainant is not comes under the purview of consumer of 3^rd OP and hence 3^rd OP is not liable to  compensate  the complainant and  the 3^rd OP thereby prayed for the dismissal of complaint against them.

       Due to the rival contentions raised by the OPs to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues  accordingly.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of  OPs?
2. Whether there is any  compensation  &  cost to the complainant?

       In order to answer the issues, the commission called evidence from both parties. The  complainant produced one document which is marked as Ext.A1.   Ext.A1 is the tax invoice  issued by 1^st OP dtd.21/6/2023.  The complainant adduced evidence  through proof  affidavit and examined as PW1. 2^nd OP produced 3 documents which is marked as Exts.B1 to B3.  Ext.B1 is the  Authorization letter, Ext.B2is the  copy of warranty  details(subject to proof), Ext.B3 is the copy of job sheet issued by Oppo customer service  dtd.8/7/2023.  The  2^nd  OP adduced evidence through proof affidavit and examined as DW1.  No oral as well as documentary evidence from the side of 3^rd  OP.  Complainant and  2^nd OP filed argument note.

     Let us  have a clear glance into the  documents produced   before the commission to answer the issues raised. For the sake of  convenience both issues are clubbed together. Ext.A1, which is the original tax invoice of purchase of mobile  on 21/6/2023 for Rs.14,000/- which was issued  by 1^st OP, goes in tune with the averment made in the complaint.  In order to clarify whether the defect was arise within the warranty period.  Ext.B2(warranty details) can be relied which was produced by 2^nd OP.  The warranty provided is for 12 months from the date of purchase and only for personal use  not for self inflicted damage.  Here, on the perusal of Ext.B3 which was produced  by 2^nd OP, the service card shows that the mobile is in warranty period and the defect stated is lines on display and the repair date is 11/7/2023. Here, Ext.B3 is not returned by 1^st OP to complainant as it is produced  by 2^nd OP.  Moreover, the Ext.B3 says that the physical condition of the mobile phone seems good.  The PW1 made consideration to  1^st OP and admitted during cross examination that  PW1 is not claiming any relief from OPs 2&3.  1^st OP is not appeared before the commission, in spite of  the service of  notice commission give fair chance  to 1^st OP to contest the case  but  1^st OP is  set exparte.  Here it is apparent that the defect arise within the warranty period and hence the commission came into a conclusion  that the 1^st OP is liable to  cure the defect of mobile phone of  free of cost or to pay Rs.14,000/- towards the price of mobile phone and also the complainant is entitled to get compensation.

           In the result complaint is allowed in part, 1^st opposite party  is directed to  cure the defect of mobile phone of  free of cost within one month from the date of order or the 1^st opposite party is directed to  pay Rs.14,000/- towards the price of mobile phone to the complainant and  also pay Rs. 7,000/- as compensation  and cost of proceedings to the complainant  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 . Failing which complainant is at liberty to file execution application against  the 1s  opposite party as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1-Tax invoice

B1- Authorization letter

B2- copy of warranty  details

B3- Copy of jobsheet

PW1-Priya.K.V -complainant.

DW1-Ajay Krishnan-witness of 2^nd   OP

Sd/                                                   Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR