IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 30th day of September, 2020
Filed on 23. 06. 2018
Present
1. Sri. Santhoshkumar Bsc. LLB(President)
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma.BA. LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.169/2018
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Steehpen Josepth 1. Reliance Retail Ltd.
Vlliyara Shed No.77/80, Indian Corporation
Thathampally Godown, Mankoli Naka,
Alappuzha-688006 Vill:Dapode, Tal:-Bhiwandi,
(Party in person) Dist: Tane, Maharashtra-421 302
2. Reliance Retail Ltd.
5,TTC, Lndl Area Belapur Road, Ghansoli
Navi Mumbai-400 701
(Exparte)
3. Represented by Area
Manager, LYF Service,
Centre, 1st Floor,Alleppey.
Arcade Cullen Road
Mullackal Junction
Alappuzha-688 011
(Adv. M/s Sheriff Associates for OP 1 to 3)
O R D E R
SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA (MEMBER)
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986
A brief fact of the complainant’s case is that:-
The mobile phone LYF Earth 2 in question is a replaced one and the same is obtained by the complainant as per the order in CC.No.407/2016 on 1/6/2018. But the gadget had shown complaints and its performance is poor as the earlier mobile phone. The complaints are the Face book live streaming issue, Finger Print pin error, and phone heated while charging, Retina scanning not working and camera quality is very poor. According to the complainant this series of phones having manufacturing defect. The complainant has spent Rs. 20,000/- for the price of his earlier phone. The replaced phone also having same defect therefore, complainant suffers mental agony. Hence complainant approaches this Commission for getting refund, compensation and costs of the proceedings.
2. Version of the 1st and 3rd opposite parties are as follows:-
The opposite parties denied all averments in complaint. According to them the intention of the complainant in the earlier round of litigation was to grab money from the opposite parties. He is not all satisfied with the order in CC.No.407/2016. His wishes are to refund the price of the gadget. Therefore with the same intention he filed the present cases without backing any cogent evidences. Since the allegation with regard to defects of gadget is not proved. The complainant did not approach the opposite parties with any defect subsequent to the receipt of the new handset. The attempt of the complainant in knocking the doors of commission evidences the ulterior motive of the complainant. The alleged defects of the phone are untrue and the same is denied by the opposite parties. The complainant had neither permitted the technician of the opposite parties to insert the SIM in the new hand set nor allowed him to do preliminary handset updation after collecting the same on 1/6/2018. The complainant had accepted the handset with a hostile attitude. The old handset of the complainant was replaced with a new one by these opposite parties to his full satisfaction and the cause of action of CC.No.407/2016 had been resolved completely. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. No cause of action had arisen against the opposite parties and dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs to the opposite parties.
3. The complainant appeared in person adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Exts. A1 and A2 were marked. Opposite parties did not adduce any evidence. We have heard both sides.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the complainan t is entitled to get refund form
opposite parties?
2. Compensation and costs if any?
5. Points No.1 and 2
The mobile in question is a replaced one. Ext.A1 is the evidence for that. According to the complainant the same is suffering from various defects as same as in the earlier one and for proving the defects he produced Ext.A2.
The opposite party totally denied all the contentions and averred that the motive of the complainant is to refund the price of mobile. The alleged manufacturing defects are not proved by cogent evidence.
It is pertinent to note that the complainant has not any consistent case. It appears that he is not satisfied with the replacement order pronounced in CC.No.407/2016. He is adamant to get refund since he is under the impression that LYF Earth 2 series of phone including the handset under dispute are facing manufacturing problems. According to him the manufacturing defects found by the Commission in CC.No.407/2016 is repeating in the replaced phone also. For proving said defects he himself prepared and produced Ext.A2. But he was not ready to take an expert opinion to prove the alleged defects. He is still stick on the earlier expert opinion in CC.No.407/2016. Moreover he did not approach the opposite parties to convince the defect of the disputed mobile phone and is still complaining about their service. It seems that the complainant did not take and hasty step to prove his case. The hostile attitude of the complainant is not all warranted. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed with compensatory costs of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) to the opposite parties.
Complainant produced the disputed mobile phone before the commission marked as MO1. The same will be collected after the appeal period.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 30th day of September , 2020.
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Sd/-Sri. S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Stephen Joseph(Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Replacement copy form LYF
Ext.A2 - copy of mobile complaints.
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
