SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

     This is a  complaint filed by the complainant  U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the OPs to  refund the value of  mobile phone Rs.15,100/- with 12% interest from the date of payment and Rs.1,00,000/-  as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and cost of the  proceedings for the  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice  on the part of OPs.

  The brief of the complaint :

       The complainant had purchased Redmi note 11 power mobile  phone from 2^nd OP on 14^th April 2023 for an amount of Rs.15,100/-.  Thereafter on 20/6/2023 only after 68 days of use the phone suddenly stopped  working  at around 12.30 A.M while the complainant was using the phone.  Immediately then the complainant approached 2^nd OP and the 2^nd OP advised the complainant to approach the authorized service centre.  Then the complainant approached authorized  service centre and entrusted the faulty  mobile phone to the service centre.  Thereafter the technician  one Mr.Abhilash who had checked the mobile phone and told that the mobile phone is already open and that the motherboard shield inside the phone is missing.  The complainant stated  that the product is under warranty, why  should he  approached to go to any other shop for repairing his phone. On  22/6/2023 evening also one staff call from the service centre one Mr.Athul who said that he is working under the same service centre and give an officer where is the main board will be changed by the service centre and also provide  one year warranty also.  From the information provided by the service centre it clearly shows that the complainant was cheated by 1^st OP which has sold a defective and sub standard product with internal parts missing inside it to the complainant as a customer.  So the supply of defective phone of the OPs the complainant lost his family members and wife’s  connection to  contact the essential requirements.  At the time of offering to sell the mobile phone the OPs were promised that they will provide prompt services and necessary repair in case of any complaint.  But the OPs are not  ready to cure the  defects of the mobile phone.  The act of  OPs the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the complaint.

           After filing the complaint, notice  issued to both  OPs . Both OPs received the notice and not appeared before the commission and no version filed.  As such this case came to be proceed against the  OPs as  set  exparte.

    Even though the OPs have remained ex-parte it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by them against the OPs.  Hence the complainant  was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents.   Accordingly the  complainant has chosen to produce  his affidavit along with 2 documents marking them as Exts.A1& A2. The complainant  was examined as PW1.  So the OPs remain  absent in this case.  At the end the Commission heard the case on merit.  Moreover,the complainant produced the mobile phone before the commission ,after verification the mobile phone returned to complainant also.

    Let us have a clear glance at the relevant documents of complainant. Ext.A1 is the  tax invoice dtd.14/4/2023 , which clearly shows that the complainant had purchased the Redmi note 11 mobile phone for an amount of Rs.15,100/- from 2^nd OP.  Ext.A2 is the service record dtd.21/6/2023 fault description from customer is “dead” and the inspection remarks as device not booting, issue with  hardware, MB back side shield missing, need to change MB.  So it is clear that within the period of 68 days of purchase of the mobile phone became damage and the OPs are not ready to replace the phone within the  warranty period.  So the complainant is cheated by 1^st OP which has sold a defective and sub standard mobile phone with internal parts missing.  So the OPs bound to replace a new mobile phone to the complainant within  the warranty period.  Under  this circumstances we are of the considered view that OPs 1&2 are  directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant. So the complainant is entitled to get a new mobile phone instead of  the  defunct mobile, but the OPs failed to so.  So the OPs1&2 are jointly and severally  liable to refund the value of mobile phone worth Rs.15,100/- to the complainant along with Rs.6000/- as compensation  for mental agony caused to the  complainant and  Rs.3000/- as litigation cost.

           In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing  the opposite parties1&2 are jointly and severally are liable to refund the value of mobile phone worth Rs.15,100/- to the complainant along with Rs.6000/- as compensation  for mental agony caused to the  complainant and  Rs.3000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order.  Failing which  the  complainant is  at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  After the said proceedings the opposite parties are at liberty to take back the mobile phone from the complainant.

Exts:

A1- Tax invoice

A2-Service order

PW1-Sreejithkumar.K- complainant.

Sd/                                                                      Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                          MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR