IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 26th day of September, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 130/2020 (Filed on 16-09-2020)
Petitioner : Soumya,
Kochukarukayil House,
Kumarakom P.O.
Kottayam - 686563.
Vs.
Opposite parties : (1) Proprietor,
Oxygen Digital Shop,
Nagampadam,
Kottayam – 686001.
(Adv. Arathy K. and
Adv. Karjet Koduvath)
(2) Voice Plus Services,
Kanjikuzhi, Muttambalam,
Kottayam – 686004.
(3) M.S. Services,
Moosariparambil Building,
Earayilkadavu,
Kottayam – 686001.
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows.
The complainant had purchased a Redmi Note 8 mobile phone from the first opposite party on 25-05-2020 for a consideration of Rs.15,360/-. The phone is having a warranty for one year and one year extended warranty. The complainant was using the mobile phone and when a sim card was reinserted into the mobile, the phone was not working. Complainant approached first opposite party with the mobile phone, as per the direction of the first opposite party, the complainant approached the second opposite party for repair. The second opposite party after examination of the mobile phone reported that the repair cannot be done under warranty and demanded Rs.7,000/- for the repair of the mobile phone. Thereafter, the complainant again approached first opposite party and as per the direction of the first opposite party, approached the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party decline to do the repair work under warranty since the phone was opened and examined by the 2nd opposite party which is not an authorised service centre. The complainant suffered much sufferings due to the unfair trade practice of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is filed.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties.
The first opposite party appeared and filed version. The second and 3rd opposite parties failed to file their version or to appear before the Commission to defend their case. The second and third opposite parties were set exparte.
According to the version of the first opposite party, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party with a complaint that the mobile phone is not detecting the sim card. Since the phone was under warranty period, the first opposite party instructed the complainant to approach the second opposite party, which is an authorised service centre. On enquiry, it was revealed that the second opposite party examined the mobile phone and identified physical damages to the mobile phone due to mishandling of the mobile phone.
The complainant again approached the first opposite party and expressed that they were not satisfied with the performance of the second opposite party. Then the complainant was directed to the 3rd opposite party for the repair of the phone. The contention that this service centre refused to do the repair work under warranty since the phone was opened by an unauthorised service centre is not true. On their enquiry with the 3rd opposite party it was revealed that they had examined the phone and identified to have physical damages while inserting the sim card. The opposite party is not responsible for the physical damages of the mobile phone on account of misuse by complainant.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Ext.A1 to A3. The first opposite party filed proof affidavit.
On the basis of the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and version of the first opposite party and evidence adduced, we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- If so, what the reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together.
Point No.1 and 2
Ongoing through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant had purchased a Redme Note 8 mobile phone from the first opposite party on 25-05-2020 for a total amount of Rs.15,360/- including one year extended warranty. The phone stopped working while the complainant reinserted a sim card and complainant approached the opposite parties for the repair of the mobile phone.
Ext.A3 is the copy of the warranty card, which show that the mobile phone is also having one year extended warranty. From the above evidence, it is clear that the mobile phone became defective within the warranty period and the opposite parties declined to do the repair of the mobile phone under warranty. No contrary evidence have been adduced by the opposite parties that the defect of the mobile phone is exempted from warranty as per the warranty conditions. The act of the opposite parties in not doing the repair of the mobile phone within the warranty period is deficiency in service on their part. Hence Point No.1 and 2 are found in favour o the complainant. The complaint is allowed and we pass the following Order.
- The third opposite party is directed to do the repair of the mobile phone in to a perfect working condition within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order.
- The opposite parties are directed to give Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and sufferings with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
The Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. If not complied as directed, the amounts will carry 9% interest per annum from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 26th day of September, 2022
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of tax invoice dtd.25-05-20 issued by 1st opposite party
A2 – Copy of acknowledgement receipt of petition dtd.11-09-20
A3- Copy of warranty card
By Order
SD/-
Assistant Registrar
