Kerala

Idukki

CC/250/2017

Raji K K - Complainant(s)

Versus

Propriter Mobile Palace - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Ajimon

30 May 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :27/11/2017

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of May 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 250/2017

Between

Complainant : Reji K.K.,

Kanattu House,

Kolapra,

Kudayathoor P.O., Thodupuzha

(By Adv: P.T.Mathew)

And

Opposite Party : 1. The Proprietor,

Mobile Palace,

Pala Road,

Thodupuzha

(By Adv: Sebastian K.Jose)

2 . Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd.,

5^th Floor, Delta Block,

Embassy Tech Square, Kudumbeesanttallil,

Bangalore, Karnataka

(By Adv: Joseph Pathalil)

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant purchased a mobile phone from the first opposite party branded as Redmi Note -4 for an amount of Rs.13,800/- on 05/08/2017. Within few days of its purchase the mobile phone showed defects and is inoperative. The complainant approached the first opposite party and intimated the matter of defect and demanded another phone or the purchase price of the phone. Even though the complainant approached the first opposite party so many times, the first opposite party has not took any effort to cure the defect of the phone or repay the purchase price.

 

(Cont.....2)

 

 

-2-

Complainant further averred that at the time of purchase the first opposite party conformed one year replacement warranty to this phone and further offered that they will replace another phone or its purchase price in the event of any manufacturing defect. The phone is dead from 15/09/17 onwards and the demand of the complainant to replace the defective phone to a new one, so far not complied by the opposite parties. Such an act of the opposite parties are amounting to gross deficiency in their service. Against this the complainant issued a legal notice to the first opposite party but still the opposite parties failed to redress the grievance of the complainant.

 

Due to the defect in this phone complainant has to suffered a lot both mentally and financially. Hence the complainant filed this petition seeking relief such as to direct the opposite parties to replace the phone with a new one or else repay its amount and further direct the opposite parties to pay compensation and cost.

 

Upon notice the first opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed reply version by admitting the sale of the mobile phone in question. Opposite party further contented that complainant has not approached the opposite party and registered any complaint or has not entrusted the phone to them. Opposite party further contented that the phone is manufactured by Redmi Company and warranty also offered by them, hence the manufacturer is to be impleaded as the additional opposite party and the manufacturer is the authority to perform the warranty condition.

 

On the basis of the information given by the first opposite party in their reply version, complainant filed a petition to implead the manufacturer of the Mobile Phone as additional second opposite party. The petition is allowed and the manufacturer was impleaded and on receipt of notice from the Forum manufacturer of the said phone entered appearance and filed detailed reply version.

 

In their version the second opposite party, the manufacturer of the mobile phone, contented that while the complainant has alleged that the product could not be repaired, the complainant has not submitted any job sheet to prove that the product was submitted to the authorised service

(Cont.....3)

-3-

centre of the second opposite party for repair. Further the complainant has not produced any evidence regarding manufacturing defect in the product.

 

The second opposite party further contented that the product has to be submitted to the authorised service centre of the second opposite party to examine the defect in the product and repair it according to the terms and conditions of the warranty of the products. The second opposite party further stated that the Honourable Forum is respectfully requested to direct the complainant to approach the authorised service centre of the second opposite party for any assistance complainant may require.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 to Ext.P4 were marked. Ext.P1 is the bill dated 05/08/17 issued by the first opposite party, Ext.P2 is the warranty card of mobile phone, Ext.P3 is the copy of legal notice and postal receipt, Ext.P4 is the reply notice.

 

From the defence side service record of the mobile phone and photographs of inside of the mobile phone are produced.

 

Heard both sides,

 

The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

The Point:- We have heard the counsel for both parties and perused the evidence on record. It is an admitted fact that complainant purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the second opposite party from the first opposite party by paying Rs.13,800/- on 05/08/17. Few days after the purchase the phone is defective and intimated the matter to the first opposite party. Since the opposite parties failed to take up the matter after repeated requests, the complainant forced to issue a legal notice to the opposite parties on 31/10/17. This notice was received by the opposite parties and opposite parties sent a reply stating that, they are only a sales agent and any complaint of the product is directly deal to with the company's service centre, and based on their report of the product has to be replaced, then the company gives

(Cont.....4)

-4-

credit note and this new phone is issued to the party. Thereafter the complainant approached this Forum and filed this complaint on 27/11/17. This version is repeated by the opposite party in their reply version also.

 

In their written version, the second opposite party stated that the complainant failed to submit the mobile phone to their authorised service centre for inspection and for curing the defects. The second opposite party further requested the Forum to give direction to the complainant to produces the mobile phone to their any of the service point to cure the defect. On perusing the documents Forum finds that the second opposite party signed reply version on 12/07/18. At the same time on perusing service record produced by the opposite party, it is seen that the complainant entrusted the mobile phone to one National Electronics, Thodupuzha, the authorised service centre of the second opposite party, on 29/06/18. As per this record, it is seen that the defect of the phone caused due to water logged on and it cannot be cured under warranty. It is further stated that PCB and LCD are not covered under warranty. While on examine the complainant as a witness, the phone was produced by the counsel of the second opposite party to the Forum and tried to corroborate it with the witness. As per the records, it is very clear that, the complainant entrusted the phone to its authorised service centre within the warranty period. Much before that he intimated the matter to the sales agent within three months of its purchase.

 

It is evident from the records that, the second opposite party manufacturer is well aware of this matter and they wilfully stated that they are not aware that whether the complainant entrusted the defective phone to their authorised service centre. The authorised service centre kept the phone with them without informing the matter to the complainant and at the time of evidence they produced the phone directly to the Forum. None of the opposite parties stated in their written version that, they inspected the phone and found that the damages caused to the phone due to water logged in. Except service report no expert witness was produced before the Forum to convince that the finding of the service centre is tallying with the nature of the phone. It is the bounden duty of the opposite parties to adduce sufficient counter evidence to strengthen their version. In this case the service report says that, the complainant approached the authorised service centre and

(Cont.....5)

 

-5-

entrusted the phone to them. It is evident that the phone was with the service agent, that is why the phone produced by the counsel of the second opposite party before the Forum. At the same time on cross examination, the second opposite party put a defence question to the complainant that the complainant has not approached the service centre (page 5 of deposition of PW1). നിങ്ങൾ ഇപ്രകാരം service centre ൽ പോയതിന്റെ ഒരു തെളിവും ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടില്ല എന്ന് പറയുന്നു. നിങ്ങൾ authorised service centre ൽ നൽകാത്തതിനാൽ second opposite party യ്ക്ക് നഷ്‌ടപരിഹാരം നല്കാൻ ബാധ്യതയില്ലെന്ന് പറയുന്നു. At this juncture very pertinent question arises that if the complainant has not approached the service centre and not entrusted the defective phone to the service centre, how the defence counsel of the second opposite party produce the service records and defective phone before this Forum. The above said act of the second opposite party shows that, they has not cared to attened the defect of the phone even after the entrustment of phone and the acceptance of legal notice. The act of the second opposite party is a gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the opposite party is bound to compensate the complainant adequately.

 

On an overall appreciation of the evidence, the Forum is of a considered view that, the version of the complainant is acceptable and sustainable and the opposite parties has miserably failed to counter the version and Forum founds deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party.

 

On the basis of above discussion the complaint allowed. The second opposite party is directed to replace the defective phone as discussed above to a new one or else the second opposite party is directed to pay amount as per Ext.P1 purchase bill along with Rs.2000/- as cost of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the purchase price will carry 12% interest from the date of default till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of May, 2019.

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

 

 

 

(Cont.....6)

-6-

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Reji K.K.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - The bill dated 05/08/17 issued by the first opposite party

Ext.P2 - The warranty card of mobile phone

Ext.P3 - The copy of legal notice and postal receipt

Ext.P4 - The reply notice.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT