SMT. MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/-  to the  complainant  for the damage caused to the product, compensation  for mental agony and cost of proceedings to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.

The case of the complainant in brief

            The complainant had purchased a POCOX3 pro mobile phone for an amount of Rs.18,000/- dated 02/10/2021 from JS Digital Hub Mattannur for his plus one studies.  Then the complainant used the mobile phone for 3 months.  Thereafter the software update message came to the phone and the phone became defective in display splash, application auto back, sensor not work.  Then the complainant approached OP No.2 the authority service center and entrusted the faulty mobile phone to the service center.  There after the technician stated that the display will replace.  Then the display will changed on 09/05/2022.  There after the same defects occurred and the application auto back also happened.  The complainant stated that the product is under warranty.  Then the technician stated that the mother board will be dead then only the company can replace the mobile phone.  Then on 01/11/2023 the mother board dead and the company extended 1 year warranty also.  But they also stated that 2 year and one month elapsed no free of cost repair available.  Then the technician stated that Rs.14,000/- as the charge of mother board replacement. From the information provided by the service centre it clearly shows that the complainant was cheated by the OPs which has sold a defective mobile phone.  So the supply of defective mobile phone of OPs the complainant lost his plus one studies and not to connect other essential requirement also.  At the time of offering to sell the mobile phone the OPs were promised that they will provide prompt services and necessary repair in case of any complaint.  But the OPs are not ready to cure the defects of the mobile phone.   The act of OPs the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.    So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the complaint.

            After filing this complaint notice issued to both OPs.  Both OPs received the notice and not appeared before the commission and not filed their version.  As such this case came to be proceed against the OPs as absent.

            Even though the OPs have remained absent, it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by them against the OPs.  Hence the complainant was called up on to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents.  Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 3 documents marking them as Ext.A1 to A3.  The complainant was examined as Pw1.  So the OPs 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.  In Ext.A1 is the warranty card.  As per this warranty card it clearly shows that the dealer of the product is JS Digital hub, Mattannur and the date of purchase noted as 02/10/2021.  So it clearly shows that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone.  Ext.A2 is the service record (4 in numbers).  It is also         noted that the invoice number of the product 32270/81/208086.  The complainant stated that he has not received the tax invoice.  But the invoice number of the product is noted in service record.  Service record (4 in numbers) clearly shows that fault description regarding ‘black screen’ and ‘no display’.  The 1^st service is noted in 09/05/2022.  So the OPs bound to replace a new mobile phone to the complainant within the warranty period.  Ext. A3 is the print out of Google.  Under these circumstances we are of the considered view that OP 1 and 2 are directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant.  The OPs 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to repair the phone with free of cost or to refund the value of mobile phone Rs.18,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.3000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to repair the mobile phone with free of cost or to refund the value of mobile phone Rs.18,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.3000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost within 30  days of receipt of this order.  Failing which, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  After the said proceedings the opposite parties are at liberty to take back the mobile phone from the complainant. 

Exts.

A1  - Warranty card

A2- Service record (4 in numbers)

A3-Google print out

     Sd/                                                                                 Sd/                                                           Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                 MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forwarded by order/

Assistant Registrar