By Sri.  Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member.

The averments in the complaint are in brief:-

 1.        On 08/03/2023 the complainant had purchased a mobile phone from the first opposite party after making payment of Rs. 13,499/-. The mobile phone was manufactured by the third opposite party. It is alleged that on 04/05/2023 the complainant had raised issues of defective charging of device before the first opposite party. The first opposite party was reluctant to provide service on baseless contention of self-induced damage. However, the first opposite party received mobile phone assuring that the same will be returned within two days after rectification. It is also averred that the first opposite party had delivered an ordinary mobile phone for temporary use. On 06/05/2023 the second opposite party had contacted the complainant and demanded Rs.1,800/- for repair work by stating that mobile phone was contacted with shampoo and also demanded Rs. 5,000/- for complete repair work. It is ascertained by the complainant that he did not cause any damage to the phone and demand of cost of repair work was baseless and against terms of warranty. The opposite parties are liable to rectify the defect of the mobile phone, hence the failure to rectify defect on the part of the opposite parties are amounted to deficiency in service.  The complainant prayed for direction to replace the defective mobile phone with a new one or refund the cost of Rs. 13,499/-. The complainant also alleged unfair trade practice against the opposite parties. It is averred that he had visited the opposite parties for many times along with his friend named Pradeep Kumar requesting to repair the defects. The act of the opposite parties have caused mental agony, hardship and loss of time. Hence the opposite parties are jointly and severely liable to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% to the complainant. The complainant also demanded Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.         All the opposite parties have received notices and submitted written versions separately.

3.         It is stated in the version of the first opposite party that on 03/08/2023 the complainant had approached them with complaint of defective switch on mode and display.  The complaint was registered during period of warranty hence the first opposite party collected mobile phone from the complainant for repair work and also delivered an used phone as substitutory for temporary use. On inspection by the second opposite party, the service center, shampoo like liquid was found inside the device when it was opened. Hence service centre declined warranty service to the mobile phone. It is was contended that so far the complainant did not return back the phone given for temporary use. There is no deficiency in service from the side of first opposite party, hence contended to exonerate them from liability.

4.         The second opposite party is service centre and admitted that they had received mobile phone owned by the complainant for repair work and when it was inspected  they had detected liquid inside the device, hence they had photographed the same and contacted the complainant. The defect was customer induced one hence they are not liable to provide warranty service to the mobile phone.

5.         The third opposite party is the manufacturer of mobile phone purchased by the complainant.  It is contended that the complainant had suppressed material facts before this Commission and filed a frivolous complaint to obtain unfair advantage. The third opposite party also admitted purchase of mobile phone by the complainant as pleaded in the complaint.  According to the opposite party, the complainant had entrusted mobile phone on 06/05/2023 for repair work due to improper charging and display complaint. On examination it was found that there was liquid logged in the device which was happened due to mishandling and careless usage of the device on the part of the complainant. So the complainant was not entitled for service under terms and conditions of warranty. The defects can be repaired only on chargeable basis. There is no manufacturing defect or inherent defect to the phone. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs sought for. 

6.         The complainant has submitted proof affidavit in lieu of evidence. The documents from the side of the complainant are marked as Ext.A1 to A3. Ext. A1 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 08/03/2023 for Rs. 13,499/-prayed as cost of the phone. Ext. A2 document is the copy of receipt dated 04/05/2023 issued by the first opposite party. Ext. A3 document is the copy of job card issued by the second opposite party. There is no evidence from the side of the first and second opposite parties  as they are fail to substantiate their contentions with aide of proof affidavit. The third opposite party submitted proof affidavit to support their contention made in the version. The document produced by the third opposite party is marked as Ext B1 document.  Ext. B1 document is the copy of performa estimation / quotation dated 06/05/2023 issued by the service centre to the complainant. 

7.         Heard the complainant and the third opposite party in detail. There is no contra evidence from the side of the first and second opposite parties. The Commission examined documents and affidavits availed for scrutiny and considered following points to adjudicate the matter

1. Whether the acts of the opposite parties can be considered as deficiency in service?
2. Relief and cost?

8.         Point No.1

            The grievance of the complainant is that the mobile phone purchased as per Ext.A1 document became defective due to complaints to charging of battery, switch on mode, and display. The complainant entrusted the phone to the first opposite party for repair work as per Ext.A2 document. But the second opposite party demanded charges for repair work even under warranty by alleging self-induced damage to the device under the pretext of detection of logging of liquid inside the device.  It is argued by the complainant that the opposite parties are liable to rectify the defect as all those defects were found within warranty period and the same were not self-induced.

9.         On the other hand, the third opposite party argued that the defect of the mobile phone were self-induced, hence the same cannot be repaired under terms of warranty. According to the third opposite party, the service centre had detected logging of liquid inside the device on inspection.  So the complainant is not entitled for any relief .

10.      In the evaluation of evidence, it can be seen that the first opposite party admitted purchase of mobile phone by the complainant as per Ext.A1 document. As per Ext.A1 document the complainant had purchased the mobile phone on 08/03/2023. It has come out in evidence that the complainant had handed over the defective mobile phone to the first opposite party on 04/05/2023. As per Ext.A2 document the issue of no power on and no display were registered with the first opposite party. Later it was handed over to the second opposite party by the first opposite party for rectification work. Ext.A3 document was issued on 06/05/2023 by the second opposite party. Even though the third opposite party contended that phone was handed over to the second opposite party by the complainant on 06/05/2023, but no evidence is adduced in that regard.  As per Ext.A3 document complaints of no display and liquid logging were found on the device. But the Commission find that there is no evidence adduced by the opposite parties to show that defects were caused due to the act of the complainant. In this juncture, the Commission consider the fact that the defect was caused due to some other reasons which could be easily established by the opposite parties themselves not by the complainant himself.  Moreover it is to be noted that from 04/05/2023 up to 06/05/2023 the device was handled by first and second opposite parties.  So the Commission cannot fasten responsibility on the complaint for the defects found on the device. The opposite parties were liable to rectify the defect without any cost but they did not rectify the defects and the same are amounted to deficiency in service. So all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the same.

11.      Point No.2

            The Commission find that the mobile phone purchased as per Ext.A1 document is remained defective for a long time. The defect was found within a short period from the date of its purchase. It has come out in evidence that defective phone is still remaining in the custody of the opposite parties. There is no document available before the Commission to show that the same model phone as purchased as per Ext.A1 document is available in the market now a days.  Hence it is better to refund the cost of defective phone to the complainant. In addition, it has also come out in evidence that an used keypad phone had delivered to the complainant by the first opposite party for temporary use and the same is in the custody of the complainant. But no document is available before the Commission with respect to its model, specification and cost. So the Commission is declined to make any order in that aspect as there is chance for further dispute with regard to identity of the phone between the parties and the same may thwart in complying this order.  Hence the opposite parties are liable to refund cost of the mobile phone as per Ext.A1 document. It has also come out in evidence that the act of the opposite parties caused mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant. Hence the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation  . In addition the opposite parties are also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation.

12.       On the basis of above findings the Commission allow the complaint in the following manner: -           

1. The opposite parties are directed   refund Rs.13,499/- (Rupees thirteen thousand four hundred and ninety nine only) as  cost of the mobile phone.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thounsd only) to the complainant as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and inconvenience caused due to deficient act of the opposite parties.
3.    The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thounsd only) to the complainant as cost of litigation.

            The opposite parties shall comply this order  within 30 days from the  date of   this order otherwise entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till the date of realisation.

Dated this 30^th  day of October , 2022.

MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER

MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A3

Ext.A1: Copy of tax invoice dated 08/03/2023 for Rs. 13,499/-prayed as cost of the

             phone.

Ext.A2: Copy of receipt dated 04/05/2023 issued by the first opposite party.

Ext A3: Copy of job card issued by the second opposite party.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext.B1

Ext.B1: Copy of performa estimation / quotation dated 06/05/2023 issued by the

              service centre to the complainant. 

MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER

MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER