IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 05th day of November, 2021
Filed on 05.10.2019
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh kumar.Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. Sholly.P.R ,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.274/2019
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Biju.P.R, 1. The Manager
Krishnavilasam Mobile Store,
Mayithara.P.O Dr. Radhakrishna Kartha
Cherthala, Alappuzha Memorial Building,
(Party in person) South of Devi Temple
A.C.Road, Cherthala.
(Exparte)
2. The Managing Director
MBS Mobile Private Limited D.180 Okhala Industrial Area
Phase-1, New Delhi, -110020
(Exparte)
O R D E R
SMT. SHOLLY.P.R (MEMBER)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:-
Complainant had purchased a mobile phone from 1st opposite party, in which 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the said phone branded as Mobistar C1 shine.
On seeing the advertisement in newspapers the complainant came to 1st opposite party’s shop there the 1st opposite party described the specifications of the said phone and thereby the complainant came to the conclusion to purchase Mobistar phone. Then he visited the showroom on 29/1/2019 there the sales team gave a detailed description of the various models of the said phone and thereafter the sales manager informed the Mobistar C1 shine was the best selling one among other varieties with outstanding performance and moderate price. By describing the various merits of the said phone the entire team persuaded the complainant to purchase the said model.
Believing their words of “un-matched performance, un-matched product quality and un-matched service experience the complainant decided to purchase the said model. The product is having serial No. 911650251378089 as per invoice No. B2C04789 dated.29/1/2019. At the time of purchase the 1st opposite party informed that the product has a warranty of one year and when asked the warranty card 1st opposite party also informed that there is no separate warranty card and that the bill is the warranty card.
From the 2nd day of its purchase the functioning of the phone was not at all satisfactory. It was informed to the 1st opposite party. But he informed that the defect will be disappearing due course. On 27/9/2019 the complainant took the phone to 1st opposite party for repairs. After repairing the phone 1st opposite party handed over it to the complainant on 5/10/2019. But the defect was still continuous. It was informed by the staff of 1st opposite party that the service centre of 2nd opposite party returned the said phone after rectified the defect, hence they were helpless.
Thereafter the complainant had informed the matter to the 1st opposite party on several occasions, but there was no result to cure the defect of the said mobile phone. The above said acts of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, since the problems which started even from the warranty period, was not due to any fault on the part of the complainant and also the repair was a continuous process which the complainant cannot be tolerated and amounts to take back the defected product and refund its cost with interest. Hence this complaint for other reliefs also.
Among the notices issued from this Commission to the opposite parties, the notice of 2nd opposite party returned with endorsement ‘left’ and in response to the notice 1st opposite party enter appearance. But the 1st opposite party neither filed any version resisting the complaint nor did cross examine the complainant when he filed proof affidavit for adducing evidence. Along with proof affidavit the complainant also produced 2 documents, marked as Ext.A1 and A2.
3. Points to be considered are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to return Rs.6,100/- the cost of the phone?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite parties?
4. Reliefs and Cost?
4. Point No1 to 3:-
Complainant filed chief affidavit in tune with the complaint. 2 documents were produced and got marked as Ext.A1 and A2.
The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a Mobistar C1 Shine mobile phone for Rs.6,100/- on 29/1/2019 from 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the said phone. While the complainant was reached the showroom for purchasing a mobile the staffs and manager of 1st opposite party persuaded the complainant by describing its facilities to purchase the mobile in question. Accordingly the complainant had purchased the said phone. But before expiring the warranty period as agreed by the 1st opposite party the said phone was found defective.
Eventhough the said phone was handed over to the opposite parties for its repairing; the same was not cured satisfactorily. Hence the complainant filed this complaint. The case was posted for trial on 16/1/2020 on the same day itself the 1st opposite party entered appearance. Thereafter several opportunities were given till 25/10/2021. On that day the 1st opposite party also was set exparte. 2nd opposite party was already set exparte on 24/9/2020.
On a perusal of Ext.A1, it is the invoice of mobile phone in question the same was purchased on 29/1/2019. Ext.A2 is the job card issued by 1st opposite party dated 27/9/2019 it shows that repairing for ‘touch not working’. The complainant filed for refund of the amount received as cost of the mobile in question ie, Rs.6100/- and the complainant categorically stated that the defect occurred within the period of warranty and it was a continuous process of defects happened in the said phone which is not useful to him, hence it is to be returned to refund the amount.
The unchallenged averments in the complaint, proof affidavit and documents are clearly established the grievance of the complaint which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In view of the materials available on record we have no hesitation to hold that 2nd opposite party had committed negligence and there is clear deficiency in service on their part.
In the above circumstance the complainant is entitled to refund the cost of the disputed mobile phone, Rs.6,100/- from the opposite parties jointly and severally. Considering the facts and circumstances we fix the compensation for Rs.2000/-
5. Point No.4:-
In the result complaint stands allowed in part.
A) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.6,100/- by taking back the disputed mobile phone from the opposite parties.
B) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs. 2000/- compensation from the opposite parties.
C) Complainant is allowed to realize and amount of Rs.1000/- cost from the opposite parties.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 05th day of November, 2021.
Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Original Bill dtd.29/1/2019
Ext.A2 - Job Sheet dtd. 27/09/2019
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
