Kerala

Pathanamthitta

CC/185/2020

Prasannan P.K - Complainant(s)

Versus

QDIGI Services Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

31 Mar 2021

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pathanamthitta
CDRF Lane, Nannuvakkadu
Pathanamthitta Kerala 689645
 
Complaint Case No. CC/185/2020
( Date of Filing : 11 Nov 2020 )
 
1. Prasannan P.K
S/O Krishnan, Puthuvel House, Chittar, Konni
Pathanamthitta
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. QDIGI Services Ltd
Rep by Manager, 31/738, B3, Vytilla- Thammanam Road, Vyttilla, Kochi
2. QDIGI Services Ltd.
Rep by Manager, 31/738, B3, Vytilla- Thammanam Road, Vyttilla, Kochi
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. George Baby PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Shajitha Beevi N MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Nishad Thankappan MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 31 Mar 2021
Final Order / Judgement

 

O R D E R

Sri.Nishad Thankappan (Member II)):

 

                    Shri.Prasannan.P.K has filed this complaint before the Commission   U/S 35 of the C.P. Act 2019 with request to get relief from the opposite parties.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:- In the complaint, it is averred that the 1st opposite party is the Authorized Service Center of One Plus Mobile Phone. And the 2nd opposite party   is the service manager of the 1stopposite party. In the complaint it is averred that, on 07/03/2018 the complainant purchased a One Plus mobile phone. The complainant entrusted his mobile phone to replace the broken screen of the above mobile phone with the 1st opposite party. When he entrusted so, the 1st opposite party   made believe him that if the original screen named Gorilla is replaced it will not be broken in future. It was offered that original screen made Gorilla can be replaced for a sum of Rs. 8,201/- including the service charges. If it is replaced with duplicate screen there will be an amount of Rs.2,000/-. The 1st opposite party showed a video of describing the quality of Gorilla glass believing the version of the opposite parties the complainant entrusted his phone to them to replace with original glass. An oral guaranty was also given by the opposite parties to the complainant for any damages in future to the replaced screen. On 10/8/2020 the opposite parties return the phone after repair and they charged Rs.8201/- as repairing charges from the complainant. On 15/9/2020 the above mobile phone was fell down from the hand of the complainant and its screen was broken again. The complainant approached the opposite parties and requested to replace the broken screen and then they agreed to do so but the opposite parties failed to replace the broken screen on his repeated request. Aggrieved by the deficiency in service of the opposite parties and seeking damages from them, the complainant filed this complaint before this commission.                            

            3. Notices were issued to opposite parties.But opposite parties not turned up before the commission and did not file any version. . Due to the non-appearance of the   opposite parties, the opposite parties were set ex-parte on 19/2/2021.

4. Considering the contention raised by the parties, this commission raised the following issues for consideration.

  1. Whether there is any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
  2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation as prayed for?
  3. Relief and Cost.
  4. The complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of his case. He was examined as PW1 and produced documents in evidence and that were marked as Exhibit A1 and A2.  The opposite parties did not appear before the commission even after they received the notice and they did not file any version. Hence allegations made against the opposite parties are remaining un-rebutted. The opposite parties made believe the complainant that if the original screen named Gorilla is replaced it will not be broken in future. It shows that opposite parties had taken an unfair trade practice. Regarding these aspect we are of the opinion that the opposite parties have irresponsible way of attitude towards replacing the broken glass. In this respect it is to be noticed that the opposite parties have not shown any earnest effort to state the reason, even though the commission has sent the notice. This shows the irresponsible attitude of the opposite parties in their business. Unfair trade practice of the opposite parties is to be answerable to the complainant. It is alleged that complainant sustained heavy loss in his business. On over all reading of the entire facts and circumstances of this case we are of the strong view that complaint is to be allowed.   Being so, the point No: 2 can be answered in favour of the complainant.

 

                 6.  In the result, for the  gross negligence, unfair trade practice , dereliction in duty  and deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties 1 &2, we hereby  direct  the opposite parties 1&2  to give Rs. 8,201/-  (Rupees Eight Thousand Two Hundred and One only) to the complainant within one month from the date of the receipt of this order. Failing which the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.8,201/- along with interest at the rate of12% p.a from the date of this order till realization. And a Sum of  5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation for his mental agony, inconvenience , physical strain of the complainant and a cost of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) for  these  proceedings /- along with interest at the rate of12% p.a  from the date of this order till realization . Amount can be realized from the   opposite parties by due process of law.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31stday of March, 2021.   

 

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          (Sd/-)

                                                                                                            Sri.NishadThankappan

                                                                                                                     (Member II)

    

Sri. George Baby (President)              :  (Sd/-)

 

Smt. N. ShajithaBeevi (Member I)   :   (Sd/-)

                                                                                                                       

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1:Prasannan P.K.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1:copy of the tax invoice dated: 10/08/2020.

A2: copy of the retail  bill dated: 07/03/2018.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                  

 

 

Copy to:- (1) Prasannan P.K,

PuthuvalilVeedu,Chittar, Konni,

Pathanamthitta

(2) The Manager,

QDIGI Services Ltd.,

31/738, B3, VytillaThammanam Road,

Vytilla, Kochi.

(3) The Manager,

QDIGI Services Ltd.,31/738, B3, Vytilla,

Thammanam Road,Vytilla, Kochi.

(4) The Stock File.

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. George Baby]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Shajitha Beevi N]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Nishad Thankappan]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.