SMT. MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the opposite parties to pay the compensation and cost to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
The case of the complainant in brief
The complainant had purchased a Samsung mobile phone for an amount of Rs.41,999/- dated 22/04/2022. At the time of purchasing the mobile phone the OP No.1 assured that 4 years software updation and 5 years security updation in the mobile phone. Then on 02/12/2023 the message given by the OP’s software updation, the complainant updated, Android 14 in his phone. But on 17/12/2023 there was a line on display of the mobile phone after software updation. Then the complainant approached OP No.2 the service centre on 18/12/2023. The defect description noted as “line on display after software updation”. Then OP No.2 demanded Rs.8,300/- as the replacing charge of display. But the complainant is not ready to pay the replacing display charge. The complainant approached the OP No.2’s service centre after purchase of 1 year 7 months and 26 days. So OP No.2 demanded to cure the defect only on payment. The complainant submits that the OP had sold the defective product of inferior quality to the complainant which is continuous wants for repair. 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 appeared before the commission and filed their written version. OP 1 contended that the complainant has not arrayed the dealer of the product as the necessary party. Moreover the complainant has not produce the warranty card. The complainant had produced the mobile phone before the service centre only after the warranty period. ie, after purchase of 1 year 7 months and 26 days. The product does carry warranty only which means and product shall be repaired free of cost up to the period of limited period from the date of purchase. So the warranty period was exhausted the OP No.2 demanded to cure the defect only on payment. So there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The complaint may be dismissed.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for considerations.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- Relief and cost?
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of Pw1 and Ext. A1 and A2 marked. On OPs’ side no evidence produced.
Issue No.1 to 3 taken together
The complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. The documents Ext.A1 & A2 marked. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice and Ext.A2 is the complaint of service request. The complainant was cross examined as Pw1 by OP1. In the evidence of Pw1 who clearly states that നിങ്ങൾ എവിടെ നിന്നാണ് മൊബൈൽ ഫോൺ വാങ്ങിയത്? തളിപ്പറമ്പിൽ നിന്നാണ്. മൊബൈൽ ഷോപ്പിനെ എതൃകക്ഷി ആക്കിയിട്ടില്ല? ഇല്ല. കക്ഷിയാക്കാതിരിക്കാൻ കാരണമുണ്ടോ? ഇല്ല. The OP already stated in the version that “the dealer of the product as the necessary party”. But the complainant has not take steps to implead the dealer as the party array. So the complainant is bad for non-joinder of parties. Moreover the OP contend that the physical damage to the product. The complainant has miserably failed to produce a ‘Test report” to show the manufacturing defects if any from a technical expert. The complainant should produce the warranty card issued by the seller, It is pertinent to believe that the mobile phone referred by the complainant might have damaged one purchased from somewhere use. But the complainant fails to do.
After perusing the document and evidence the complainant is not in a position to prove that there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the OPs. So there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
As discussed above the complainant has not proved the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the OPs. Thus the issue No.1 to 3 found against the complainant.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exhibits for complainant
A1- Tax invoice
A2- Complaint of service request.
Pw1-Complainant.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forwarded by order/
Assistant Registrar
