PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Saturday the 30th day of April 2022
C.C.535/2015
Complainant
Arun Kumar. P
Geetha Nivas, Thotooli
Pantheerankavu P.O
Kozhikode
Opposite Parties
- The Proprietor
3G Mobile world
Sabha Centre
Mavoor Road, Near Flyover
Kozhikode – 673 004
(By Adv. Sri. Dilkhush. V.K)
- The Service Manager
Authorized Service Centre at Mobile Lab
Puthiyara, Kozhikode
(By Adv. Sri. Joju Cyriac)
- Management
Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Ferms Icon Level 2
Doddana Kundi Village
Maratha Hali Outer Ring Road
K. R. Puram
Hobi – Bangalore – 560 037
(By Adv. Sri. Deepu. K.V & Adv. Sri. Firoz)
-
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 08/05/2015 the complainant purchased LENOVO brand A 328 model mobile phone from the first opposite party on payment of Rs.6,000/- including VAT. On 29/06/2015 the mobile phone became defective and was not displaying anything and stopped its function too. The complaint was reported to the first opposite party. As per their advice, the defective mobile phone was handed over to the second opposite party, who is the service provider and he told the complainant to come after two days. Though the second opposite party was contacted several times, the defect was not rectified. On 14/07/2015 the second opposite party informed him that service charges of Rs.4,000/- need to be paid for repairs. So the complainant was constrained to take back the device from the second opposite party without rectifying the defects. The warranty period was not over and the opposite parties are bound to rectify the defects without charging extra money. But instead, they have not only demanded payment of extra money, but also made the complainant wait for 15 days which caused mental agony and stress to him. The act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant issued a letter to the first opposite party to which they send a reply stating false facts. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony including the cost of the mobile phone.
3. The manufacturer was impleaded as supplemental third opposite party as per order dated 21/12/2015 in IA 285/2015.
4. The first and second opposite parties filed version separately. The supplemental third opposite party though entered appearance did not file any version and was set ex-parte.
5. The purchase of the mobile phone in question by the complainant is admitted by the first opposite party in their version. But the allegation that on 29/06/2015 the said mobile hand set became defective is false and baseless and hence denied. The complainant never approached them with any such complaint. In fact the complainant approached them and enquired about the authorised service centre and after this he never approached the first opposite party. He approached the service centre directly and what transpired there is not known to the first opposite party. After the receipt of the notice issued from this Commission, on enquiry it was revealed that the service centre found water entry in the hand set and that it was caused due to the careless handling of the device by the complainant. The warranty protection is not covered for a physically damaged hand set. There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the first opposite party. It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
6. The second opposite party in their version has admitted that the complainant had produced the mobile hand set in the service centre for repairs. On examination it was found that there was water entry in the hand set and it is not covered by the warranty. The touch and LCD needed replacement and the expenses for the same had to be met by the complainant and he was informed accordingly. There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. With the above contentions, the second opposite party also prays for dismissal of the complaint.
7. The points that arise for determination in this case are:
(1) Whether there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade
practice on the side of the opposite parties, as alleged?
(2) Reliefs and costs.
8. The complainant filed affidavit and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked. Complainant was not cross examined by the opposite parties and no evidence was let in by them.
9. Heard.
10. Point No.1: The complainant has approached this Commission with a grievance that the mobile hand set sold to him was defective and there was neglect on the part of the opposite parties to repair/service the same during the warranty period. According to the complainant, the act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service, for which, he is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- including the cost of the mobile phone.
11. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant filed affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint. It is averred in the affidavit that he purchased LENOVO brand A 328 model mobile phone from the first opposite party on 08/05/2015 as per Ext. A1 tax invoice. But soon after the purchase, the hand set became defective on 29/06/2015 and as per the advice of the first opposite party he approached the second opposite party for repairs. But the second opposite party demanded Rs.4,000/- as repair charges and hence he could not get the mobile hand set repaired. Ext. A4 copy of the warranty card show that there was warranty for 12 months. Thereafter the complainant issued Ext. A2 lawyer notice which was replied with Ext.A3 reply notice by the first opposite party.
12. The fact that the complainant purchased the hand set in question from the first opposite party on 08/05/2015 is admitted. It is also rather admitted that soon after the purchase, the hand set became defective on 29/06/2015 and on the next day it was entrusted to the second opposite party for repairs. Admittedly, it is within the warranty period. But the second opposite party demanded payment for repairs.
13. The contention of the opposite parties is that there was water entry in the mobile hand set and it is not covered by the warranty. In this context, Ext. C1 report of the expert is to be looked in to. On an application filed by the complainant, the mobile hand set was examined by the Assistant Engineer, PWD Electronics Section, Kozhikode who filed Ext. C1 report. It is specifically reported in Ext. C1 that no identification of water damage is seen on PCB board of the phone and that it is damaged due to manufacturing defect. So Ext. C1 rules out any water entry. On the other hand, it confirms manufacturing defect to the device. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve or discard Ext. C1.
14. The evidence of the complainant stands unchallenged. The complainant was not cross examined by the opposite parties and they did not adduce any evidence. No contra evidence is there. The opposite parties have not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant including Ext. C1. The third opposite party has not even cared to file version. The case of the complainant stands proved.
15. The act of the opposite parties in selling a mobile hand set having manufacturing defect to the complainant and their further neglect to repair/service the same during the warranty period amounts to unfair trade practice and gross deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to get replacement of the device or return of the price. Undoubtedly, the act of the opposite parties has caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant, for which, he is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.3,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this regard.
16. Point No. 2: In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed as follows:
(a) CC 535 /2015 is allowed in part.
(b) The opposite parties 1 and 3 are hereby directed to replace
the mobile phone of the complainant with a new one of similar
description which shall be free from any defect or return its
price amounting to Rs.5,714.29 (Rupees five thousand seven
hundred and fourteen and twenty nine paise only).
(c) The opposite parties 1 and 3 are directed to pay a sum of
Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant as
compensation for the inconvenience, mental agony and hardship
suffered.
(d) No order as to costs.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 30th day April, 2022
Date of Filing: 16/10/2015
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Tax invoice
Ext. A2 – Lawyer notice
Ext. A3 – Reply notice
Ext. A3 (a) – Copy of the postal acknowledgement card
Ext. A4 – Copy of the warranty card
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil
Commission Exhibits
Ext. C1 - Report filed by Sri. Jithesh. P. Assistant Engineer, PWD
Electronics Section, Kozhikode.
Witnesses for the Complainant
Nil
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
