IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2022

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt. Bindhu R.  Member

C C No. 59/2022 (filed on 17-03-2022)

Petitioner                                          :         Job C.T.

                                                                   Chennattu House,

                                                                   Manthuruthy P.O.

                                                                   Nedumkunnam,

                                                                   Kottayam – 686542

                                                                              Vs.

Opposite Parties                               :         Naptol Online Shopping (P) Ltd.

                                                                   Vikas Royal Arcade,

                                                                   Saint Nagar, Rani Bagh,

                                                                   Pitampura, Delhi – 110034.

O  R  D  E  R

Sri. Manulal V.S. President

The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the complainant is that being attracted by the advertisement given by the opposite party in television he placed an order for I Kall 4G Andriod Mobile (K-500) to the opposite party. Opposite party delivered the said mobile to the complainant vide bill no.22849641S0054427 dated 19-6-2021 against cash payment at the time of delivery .the complainant received the mobile on payment of Rs.5399/-. It is averred in the complaint that the said mobile was defective                  and the complainant was not in position to use the same even for a single day. When the complainant informed the defect of the mobile phone to the opposite party they replaced the same with another one. However that was also defective. After the repeated demands of the complainant the opposite party replaced the second mobile with a new one after three months. But this was also a defective one. Though the complainant lodged many complaints with opposite party they did not care to refund the price of the mobile phone. It is averred in the complaint that due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complainant had suffered much loss and hardships. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite party to refund Rs.5399along with compensation of Rs.4000/-.

Though the notice was duly issued to the opposite party the same was returned as left without instructions. Therefore as per the settled laws it was considered as deemed service. Opposite party did not care to appear before the commission and file version. Hence opposite party was set ex-party.

Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibit A1.

Points to be considered

1. Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and is entitled to any reliefs as prayed?

The specific case of the complainant is that the mobile phone I Kall 4G Andriod Mobile (K-800) which was purchased by him from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.5399/- was defective. It is submitted by the complainant in the complaint as well as the proof affidavit that though opposite party replaced the mobile phone  twice they did not provide a defect free mobile phone to him as promised by the opposite party. According to the complainant the mobile phone which was replaced during December 2021 was also defective. It is proved by exhibit A1 that the opposite party had replaced the defective product against the order no. 82694105 with the invoice number no.22849641S0054427 dated                     19-6-2021. Thus it is proved that the complainant had purchased product from the opposite party on 19-6-21 vide invoice number no.22849641S0054427 and the same was became defective and the same was replaced. On perusal of exhibit A1 we can see that the replacement was made against the complaint registered as no. 51975777 dated 28-9-21. There is no contrary evidence before us to prove that the mobile phone which was already replaced to the complainant has no defect at all.  Complainant placed an order for purchasing the mobile phone of I Kall 4G Andriod Mobile (K-800) through the opposite party and the mobile phone was delivered by the opposite party. Thus, the opposite party is also a co-seller. Therefore, the opposite party cannot absolve themselves from the liability of the product. As the complainant did not place any order to the manufacturer of the mobile phone, according to us, the manufacturer and the seller is not  necessary parties so far as the complainant is concerned.

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.5399/-, the price of the mobile phone and shall also pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this the order, failing which, the amount shall carry interest @9% per annum till the payment is made in full. Complaint is allowed accordingly.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 10^th day of July, 2022

Sri. Manulal V.S. President             Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu R.  Member                Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant

A1 – Delivery chellan issued by opposite party

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

Nil

                                                                                                  By Order

`

                                                                                                Assistant Registrar