By Sri. MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
The averment of the complainant is as follows:-
1) On 15/02/2023, the complainant had purchased a NEW REALME 9 PRO PLUS mobile phone from PREXO TRADING for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only). The second opposite party is the manufacturer of the mobile phone and first opposite party is the authorised service centre of the second opposite party. The product was provided with warranty of one year period. On 16/05/2023 the complainant noted a black dot on the screen of the mobile phone and later entire screen became black colour. As a result, the screen of the phone was replaced with warranty from the first opposite party. It is averred that on 22/08/2023 a black colour was again appeared on the screen and later the entire screen became black colour. So the complainant again visited the service centre of the first opposite party. But the first opposite party denied warranty facilities alleging physical damage to the product. It is averred that if mobile phone is examined, it can be seen that no physical damage was affected to it. It is alleged by the complainant that he had visited the first opposite party four times, but no action was taken by them. So the complainant prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant as the cost of the defective phone. Moreover the complainant demanded Rs.30,000/- from the opposite parties as the compensation for the sufferings of financial loss , mental agony and hardship. The complainant also prayed for cost of the proceedings from the opposite parties.
2. The complaint is admitted and issued notices to the opposite parties. The notice issued to the first opposite party returned with endorsement ‘left’. Subsequently the complainant filed an Interim application to amend the cause title to insert correct address of the first opposite party. The Commission allowed the same and issued notice to the correct address of the first opposite party. The first opposite party received notice and filed version. The second opposite party remained absent in the proceedings, hence the Commission set them exparte.
3. It is admitted by the first opposite party that on 15/01/2023 the subject mobile phone was purchased by the complainant from ‘PREXO TRADING’ and the complainant approached them for rectifying the defect of screen. As the product was under warranty period, the first opposite party replaced screen of the phone with concurrence of the second opposite party. It is also stated by the first opposite party that the complainant had again approached them with a complaint of appearance of blue colour on the screen of the phone. So the first opposite party contacted the second opposite party for availing warranty benefit. But the second opposite party rejected the warranty claim and same was reported to the complainant. It is contended that the first opposite party is service centre of the second opposite party and all warranty undertakings are provided by the second opposite party and services to the products are done on the basis of direction given by the second opposite party. The first opposite party stated that there was no deficiency in service from their side and all after sale services are provided by the second opposite party only. So the first opposite party is prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant and the first opposite party filed affidavits in lieu of evidence. The documents produced by the complainant is marked as Ext. A1 to A5 documents. Ext. A1 document is the copy of sales B2C invoice dated 15/02/2023 showing the purchase of mobile phone for Rs. 24,999/- by the complainant. Ext. A2 document is the copy of warranty details of the mobile phone. Ext. A3 document is the copy of repair order dated 16/05/2023 issued by the first opposite party. Ext. A4 document is the copy of photograph of the screen of the phone. Ext.A5 document is the copy of repair order dated 23/08/2023 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant.
5. The documents produced by the first opposite party is marked as Ext. B1 to B5 documents. Ext. B1 document is the copy of repair order dated 16/05/2023 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. Ext. B2 document is the copy of photo graph of damaged screen of a phone due to external force. Ext. B3 document is the copy of repair order dated 23/08/2023 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. Ext. B4 document is the copy of email communication made by the first opposite party to the second opposite party with regard to the complaint of mobile phone. Ext. B5 document is the copy of sales B2C invoice dated 15/02/2023 showing the purchase of mobile phone for Rs. 24,999/-.
6. Heard both sides in details. Perused documents and affidavits thoroughly. The Commission considered the following points to adjudicate the matter.
i) Whether the acts of the opposite parties are amounted to deficiency in
service?
ii) Relief and cost?
7. Point (i) and (ii)
The Commission is considering both points together as those are inter related to each other. The complainant has argued that the mobile manufactured by the second opposite party became defective and the first opposite party did not rectify the defect even though he had repeatedly contacted the first opposite party. So the complainant alleged manufacturing defect to the phone as well improper service. The complainant has produced Ext. A1 document to show the purchase of mobile phone made on 15/02/2023 for Rs. 24,999/-. The first opposite party also produced same document which is marked as Ext. B5 document. It is averred by the complainant that on 16/05/2023 a black dot was appeared on the screen later it spread over entire screen of the mobile phone. On the basis of complaint made by the complainant the screen was replaced with warranty coverage. The complainant has produced Ext. A3 document in that regard. The first opposite party also produced same document and marked it as Ext. B1 document. Ext. A3 document would show that the phone suffered screen problem. Hence the first opposite party replaced screen of the phone. It is also averred that on 22/08/2023 the screen of the phone was again damaged as black dot was appeared on the screen. Later it became larger spreading entire screen. The complainant produced Ext. A4 document to show default of the phone. But when the complainant approached the first opposite for rectification work, same was denied by the first opposite party and issued Ext.A5 document. The complainant argued that the act of the opposite parties are amounted to deficiency in service as the opposite parties are liable to replace or repair the mobile phone.
8. On the contrary, it was argued by the first opposite party that they are the authorised service centre of the second opposite party and carrying services of the products on the basis of direction given by the second opposite party. It is admitted by the first opposite party that replacement was not done for the defect suffered on 22/08/2023 as RTTC team of the second opposite party confirmed that defect was occurred due to external impact damage / pressure and same cannot be rectified under warranty. It is further argued that all warranty undertakings are provided by the second opposite party. So there was no deficiency in service from the side of the first opposite party.
9. In the evaluation of evidence, it can be seen that there is no contra evidence availed from the side of the second opposite party, the manufacturer. It has come out in evidence that mobile phone of the complainant has became defective during warranty coverage provided by the second opposite party. The first opposite party also admitted that defect was occurred during time of warranty coverage. On 16/05/2023 screen of the phone had suffered defect and same defect was again occurred on 22/08/2023. But after the second occurrence no action was taken by the opposite parties. The RTTC team of the second opposite party declared that defect was occurred due to external impact. But the opposite parties are failed to produce any evidence before the Commission to prove that the defect occurred on 22/08/2023 was resulted due to external impact. It was categorically argued by the complainant that no external damage was occurred to the phone and same can be seen if it is physically examined. But no step was taken by the first opposite party to rule out manufacturing defect of the phone. On 25/03/2023 the complainant had produced defective phone before the Commission. It is argued by the complainant that mobile phone was not in working condition. At the same time the first opposite party did not take any step to rebut argument of the complainant. The Commission find that the mobile phone has repeatedly suffered defects and thereby became useless. In this juncture, the Commission find that the mobile phone purchased by the complainant as per Ext.A1 document suffers manufacturing defect and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the same.
10. It is argued by the first opposite party that a blue dot was appeared on the screen of the phone at the time of defect occurred on 22/08/2023 not black dot as alleged by the complainant. It is argued that blue colour was appeared due to damage caused by external impact. But the Commission find that there is no merit in that argument of the first opposite party. The first opposite party has failed to substantiate his argument with cogent evidence. So the Commission cannot rely upon Ext. B2 document produced by the first opposite party as it had lacked authenticity. The Commission find that an expert evidence was required to prove the contention of the first opposite party. The Commission also find that the dealer of the first opposite party is not a necessary party in this proceedings as there was no allegation raised in the complaint against the dealer. It is come out in evidence that mobile phone became useless due to manufacturing defect and same is not in a working condition. No evidence is produced by the first opposite party to show that RTTC team had examined the mobile phone and opined of external impact as causation for the defect. The first opposite party is bound to conduct examination of the phone handed over by the complainant after defect was occurred on 22/08/2022. So the Commission consider that the first opposite party had failed to detect the reason for the defect of the phone at their own motion. So it can be amounted to deficiency in service. It is also come out in evidence that the complainant had repeatedly approached the first opposite party to rectify the defect. But the opposite parties were adopted a lukewarm approach. The act of the opposite parties have caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. So the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant. Moreover the opposite parties are also liable to pay cost of the proceedings to the complainant. The Commission consider that Rs. 10,000/- will be reasonable amount as compensation and Rs.5,000/- will be a reasonable amount as cost of the proceedings.
11. In the light of discussion made above, the Commission find that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service towards the complainant, hence complaint is allowed in the following manner:-
- The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 24,999/- (Rupees twenty four thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) to the complainant as cost of the defective mobile phone.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the act of deficiency in service.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant as the cost of the proceedings.
- The opposite parties are permitted to take back the defective mobile phone in such condition as it is available with the complainant after making payment of amount as ordered by the Commission.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of this order otherwise entire amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till the date of realisation
Dated this 24th day of April, 2024.
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A5
Ext.A1: Copy of sales B2C invoice dated 15/02/2023 showing the purchase of mobile
phone for Rs. 24,999/- by the complainant.
Ext.A2: Copy of warranty details of the mobile phone.
Ext A3: Copy of repair order dated 16/05/2023 issued first opposite party.
Ext A4: Copy of photographs of the screen of the phone.
Ext A5: Copy of repair order dated 23/08/2023 issued by the first opposite party to the
complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B5
Ext.B1: Copy of repair order dated 16/05/2023 issued by the first opposite party to the
complainant.
Ext.B2: Copy of photo graphs of damaged screen of the phone due to external force.
Ext.B3: Copy of repair order dated 23/08/2023 issued by the first opposite party to the
complainant.
Ext.B4: Copy of email communication made by the first opposite party to the second
opposite party with regard to the complaint of mobile phone of the
complainant.
Ext.B5: Copy of sales B2C invoice dated 15/02/2023 showing the purchase of mobile
phone for Rs. 24,999/-.
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER
