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 OPs to refund the value of mobile phone  Rs.35,990/- to the complainant  along with Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused  to the complainant and litigation cost to the complainant  for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice  on  the  part of OP’s.

The brief  of the complaint :

    The  complainant  had purchased  Oppo mobiles Pvt. Ltd Co’s RENOS PRO B+12BGBmodel mobile phone on 23/1/2021 for an amount of  Rs.35,990/-.  At the time of purchasing the phone, the OP assured one year warranty with free of  cost repair.  The complainant had purchased the mobile phone only on believing the advertisement and assurance of OPs.  The OPs assured that the product is free from all defects.  But within the warranty period the phone became defective and  2^nd OP is cured the defects and updates in proper  time itself.  Thereafter on 10/1/2023 the mobile phone became defective and the complainant approached to 2^nd OP.  The 2^nd OP checked the phone on  10/1/2023 and returned to the  complainant  on 11/1/2023 to states that the line occurred in the mobile phone and to change the display of the phone.  Moreover the OP’s technician states that the display will be replaced only on receiving the cost.  The complainant is not ready to pay the cost because this technical problem arise at the time of production and this mobile phone have some manufacturing defect also. The act of OPs ,the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the complaint.

       After filing the complaint notice issued to  both OPs.  OPs 1&2 received the notice and 1^st OP filed version.1^st OP contended that after 2 years of usage on 10^th January 2023 the mobile phone  submitted  before the service centre claiming that vertical lines were visible on the display of the product.  The expert service  centre technician found that the device had some touch issue and the display of the product is required to get replaced.  So service centre provided the estimate cost of the repair to the complainant.  But the complainant never visited the service centre for the repair.  Moreover the OP contended that the warranty is a commercial contract between the manufacturer and  the customer and as  such the terms and condition there in are binding between both parties and the product  of the complainant was out of warranty. So there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of  OPs and the  complaint may be dismissed.

   On 3/7/2023 the complainant filed a petition before the commission to appoint an expert commissioner.  The OP has no objection to expert application.  Then the  petition allowed and one Mr.Suji.M.P is appointed as the expert commission and the commissioner inspected  the mobile phone and filed the report before the commission and marked as Ext.C1.  The 1^st OP has filed objection to the commission report also.

      On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following  issues  were framed for consideration.

1. Whether there is  any deficiency of service   on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3. Relief and cost.

     The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1  and Exts. A1 & A2 and Ext.C1 were marked. On OP’s side no oral or documentary evidence produced.  OP filed argument note and  the complainant argued the matter .

Issue No.1: 

         The  Complainant  adduced evidence before the commission by submitting  his chief affidavit in lieu of  his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the  contentions in the version.  He was cross examined as PW1 by 1^st  OP. He relied upon  Exts.A1& A2 and Ext.C1 report.  According to the complainant on 23//1/2021 the complainant  had purchased  RENOSPROB+!@BGB model mobile  phone for  an amount of Rs.35990/- from 1^st OP that shows in Ext.A1 tax invoice. In Ext.A2 is the customer service report.  As per the customer service the remarks noted as Reno 5 pro Line on display issue vertical lines on display, as per customer voice  issue happened after OTA update.  Moreover the Ext.C1 report the expert noted that “ lines in display is the main complaint and the problem occurs due to the manufacturing defect and also complaint in soft ware section of the company.  In the evidence of  PW1 who deposed before the  commission that “ നിങ്ങൾ phone മാറ്റി തരണം എന്നാണ് ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടത്? അല്ല phone defect ശരിയാക്കി തരണം”.  But the  OPs are not cure the defect of the phone.  The OPs  fail to do so. The act of OPs ,the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the issue No.1 found in favour of the complainant and  answered accordingly.

Issue Nos.2&3:

        As discussed above the  OPs are not ready to cure the defects of  the mobile phone.  The complainant produced Ext.A1 document which clearly shows that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone for  an amount of Rs.35,990/-.  In Ext.A2, the service record  shows the vertical lines in display. In Ext.C1 report , the  expert commissioner noted   the 4^th clause” the problem occurs due to  the manufacturing defect and also complaint in soft ware section of the company”.  So it is clear the  mobile phone have some manufacturing defect also.  According to the complainant  failure to cure the defect of the mobile phone the OPs are directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant.  Therefore  we hold that the OPs are jointly and severally liable to  cure the defects of the mobile phone with free of cost or to pay the value of mobile phone worth Rs.35,990/- to the complainant along with Rs.7000/- as compensation  for mental agony caused to the complainant  and Rs.4000/- as litigation cost. Thus issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered. 

          In the result the complaint is allowed in part  directing the  opposite parties 1&2 are jointly and severally liable to  cure the defects of the mobile phone with free of cost or to pay the value of mobile phone worth Rs.35,990/- to the complainant along with Rs.7000/- as compensation  for mental agony caused to the complainant  and Rs.4000/- as litigation cost within  30 days of  receipt  of this order. In default the amount of Rs.35,990/- carries 12% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.  If the opposite parties fail to comply the order, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  After  compliance of  the said proceedings the opposite parties are at liberty to take back the mobile phone from the complainant.

Exts:

A1-Tax invoice

A2-customer service receipt

C1- Expert report

PW1-Sanuj.C.P-Complainant

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR