Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/16/272

Sibin R - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor,Green mobile - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jul 2022

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

                               SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN         : PRESIDENT

                               SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR   : MEMBER

                               SRI.VIJU.V.R.                  : MEMBER

CC .No.272/16 (Filed on : 03.06.2016)

ORDER: 05.07.2022

COMPLAINANT

          Sibin.R

          Midhila, Aaramthanam,

          Vamanapuram.P.O

          Pin – 695606

           (Party in person)

                                                          VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

1. The Proprietor,

Greens Mobiles,

Opposite KSRTC Garage,

•  

 

2. The Proprietor,

Technosis Mobiles Service Centre,

Chantamukku, Kottarakkara

 

3. Lenovo (India) Pvt Ltd,

Ferns Icon, Level -2

Doddengakundi, Marathahalli,

Quter Ring Road, K.R.Puram,

Hobli, Bangalore – 560037

 

(Ops 1 & 2 exparte)

(OP3 by Adv.Nair Ajay Krishnan)

ORDER

SRI. VIJU  V.R. :  MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint before this Commission under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging that he had purchased a Lenovo mobile phone (Model A 6000) for Rs.7200/-  (Rupees seven thousand and two hundred only) from first opposite party. But the complainant was unable to make calls due to network issues of the phone. On 12.04.2016 complainant intimated this defect to the first opposite party. The complainant entrusted the mobile phone to the second opposite party and demanded for a new one as the present phone has become non functional immediately after the purchase of the same. The complainant also demanded new phone from the first opposite party also. But the first opposite party rejected the request of the complainant and told him that they will rectify the technical defect of the mobile phone and will return it to the complainant in a working condition. But the complainant was not amenable for rectifying the technical defect of his mobile phone as it became non functional immediately after the purchase of the mobile phone. The act of opposite parties 1 to 3 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, hence this complaint.

          2.       Even though the opposite parties 1,2 & 3 received notice, opposite parties 1 & 2 not appeared before this Commission. Hence they were set exparte. Third opposite party appeared and filed version. Third opposite party has averred that a call was logged with them on 12.04.2016 reporting network service / connection issue for which the software was upgraded and mobile phone was returned to the complainant on 02.05.2016 and the complainant himself expressed satisfaction regarding the service. The alleged network issues might be due to network activity issue with the mobile phone service provider for which third opposite party is not liable. The third opposite party has sent replies to e-mails sent by the complainant. Third opposite party is a seller of mobiles in India having global reputation and they will not commit or omit to do any act that may prejudice it’s standing in the market. The complainant has failed to prove the financial loss that had occurred to him. The third opposite party’s authorised service centre has duly honoured its warranty claim and has provided service to the complainant as soon as a call was logged with them. There is no deficiency in service from the side of third opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs to the third opposite party.

 Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties        1 to 3?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Issues (i) & (ii)

3.       The complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and has produced four documents which were marked as Exts.P1 to P4. The complainant was cross examined by third opposite party. Third opposite party has filed proof affidavit and produced three documents which were marked as Exts.D1 to D3 series. Third opposite party has filed argument notes.

 

4.       The main allegation raised by the complainant is that he was unable to make calls as there was network issues with the mobile phone. As per Ext.P1 the complainant had purchased the mobile phone on 09.04.2016 and as per Exts.P2 and D1 it can be seen that the complainant approached the service centre for repairing the mobile phone on 12.04.2016. So it can be seen that within three days from the date of purchase, the mobile phone has developed some issues. As per Exts.P3 and D3 (series) the third opposite party has got the information regarding the issues of the mobile phone. In Exts.P2 & D1 the issue of the mobile phone was noted as “ No Network Service / Connection”. The mobile phone was returned to the complainant on 02.05.2016 as per Ext.D1. During the cross examination of the complainant he has deposed that phone “എന്റ്റെ കൈവശം ഉണ്ട്”. So the mobile phone is with the complainant. The onus to prove that the mobile phone is having the manufacturing defect was upon the complainant, but complainant was miserably failed to produce cogent and reliable evidence to show that the mobile phone was having manufacturing defect and it is beyond repairs. No expert report has been placed on the record to indicate that the mobile phone was having manufacturing defect.

                   But when a person purchases a mobile phone, he expects efficient working of the mobile phone. Nobody would like to return the mobile phone immediately after the purchase. There must be some problems with the mobile phone, which either were not explained to the complainant by the opposite parties 1 to 3. Even if there is no manufacturing defect, the fact of the matter is that the phone was not working properly which may be due to any major or minor fault. The opposite parties 1 to 3 have failed to clarify reasons for the defects of the mobile phone. The complainant was not able to use his mobile phone to his full satisfaction and to his full enjoyment of a new phone. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable for the mental agony suffered by the complainant.

          In these circumstances, the ends of justice would meet if the complainant is compensated for his harassment, mental agony and the problems faced.

          In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and pay Rs.2500/- towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the entire amount except cost carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

             A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

                       Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 5^th day of July 2022.

 

 

                                                                                   Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN   : PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                                Sd/-

  PREETHA .G.NAIR: MEMBER

 

                                                                                                 Sd/-

VIJU.V.R     : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

APPENDIX

CC.NO.272/16

List of witness for the complainant

PW1            - Sibin.R

Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.P1         - Copy of invoice dated 09.04.2016

Ext.P2         - Copy of purchase of  mobile phone

Ext.P3         - Copy of details of e-mail.

Ext.P4         - Copy of letter dated 13.04.2016

List of witness for the opposite parties – NIL

Exhibits for the opposite parties

Ext.D1        - Copy of Lenove Service Record

Ext.D2        - Copy of Resolution of Board of Directors

Ext.D3        - Copy of complaint e-mail details

Court Exhibits      - NIL

 

 

                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                PRESIDENT