Kerala

Idukki

CC/60/2018

Albin Santhosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Subiksha Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Arun

30 Jan 2020

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :26/03/2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of January 2020

Present :

SMT.ASAMOL P. PRESIDENT- IN- CHARGE

SRI.AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO. 60/2018

Between

Complainant : Albin Santhosh, S/o Thomas,

Vathalloor House,

Muttoam P.O., Thodupuzha,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Arun Cherian)

And

Opposite Party : 1 . Subiksha Mobiles,

Gandhi Square, Pala Road,

Thodupuzha, Pin – 685 584.

Represented by its Branch Manager.

2 . Anil M.G., National Electronics,

Room No.10/109,City Tower,

Kanjiramattom Bypass Road,

Thodupuzha, Idukki District – 685 584.

(By Adv:Haneefa Rawther P.H.)

3 . MI India, Xiaomi Technology India Pvt.Ltd.,

Building Orchid, Block E Embassy Tech Village,

Marathahalli – Sarjapur Outer Ring Road,

Devarabisanahallai, Bengaluru,

Karnataka, Pin- 560 103,

Represented by the managing Director.

O R D E R

 

SMT. ASAMOL P. (PRESIDENT -IN -CHARGE)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

On 11/12/2017, the complainant purchased “Redmi Note 4” Mobile Phone from the first opposite party and he paid Rs.12,500/- as price of the mobile phone at the same time. Then the complainant put the SIM card to the phone but there

(Cont....2)

-2-

is no mobile network seen in the phone. The complainant informed the first opposite party about the problem of the phone. The first opposite party referred the complainant to the second opposite party. The second opposite party updated the software of the phone and returned it to the complainant. But again the phone was seen in the problem. So, the complainant again approached the second opposite party and the second opposite party said that it is seen that the display of the phone as broken. But they did not take any steps to resolve the problem. Hence, the complainant made a complaint to Thodupuzha police station. As per the direction of Thodupuzha police, the display of the phone replaced. But the phone was shown again problem. Then the complainant showed the phone to another service center they checked the phone and said that mother board of the phone is not seen in the phone. The complainant again approached the second opposite party for resolving the problem. But the second opposite party is not ready to resolve the problem and he had not returned the received amount from the complainant. It is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant sent lawyer notice to opposite parties for getting compensation from opposite parties. They received the notice. But they have not replaced the defective phone or refund the amount. Hence they are liable to resolve the problem of the phone. Hence the complainant is approaching the Forum against the acts of the opposite parties. The complainant filed a petition to implead the manufacturing company, additional third opposite party impleaded.

 

Notice served from the Forum. The first opposite party did not appear before the Forum. So the first opposite party called absent and set exparte. The second opposite party appeared and filed detailed version. The additional third opposite party also set exparte.

 

The second opposite party contented that the allegation is false. He is only the manager of service center in contractual basis. He has not received any payment from the complainant and hence he is not liable. The second opposite party further submitted that the software of the phone re-installed and updated in free of cost by him. At the time, the network signals seen in the phone. Then on 22/12/2017, the complainant again approached the service center.

 

(Cont....3)

-3-

 

The second opposite party replaced the mother board of the phone in free of cost with the consent of the complainant. It is recorded in the service book. Then complainant again approached the second opposite party with the same problem and it is seen that the display of the phone as broken. It had happened by the careless use of the complainant, hence the second opposite party cannot replace the display within warranty period. Then, the complainant made a complaint to Thodupuzha police station. As per the direction from the police, the display of the phone replaced by the second opposite party. It is solved and signed by the complainant in settled paper. The second opposite party also submitted that the actual problem of the phone is that it has no mobile network signals at the place of the point of the house situated. Hence the second opposite party is not liable and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party.

 

The complainant adduced evidence by way of proof affidavit and produced 6 documents. P1 is the bill, P2 is the service record, P3 is the lawyer notice dated 17/02/2018, P4 is the postal receipt, P5 is the AD card and P6 is the reply notice from the second opposite party which were marked as Ext.P1 to Ext.P6 respectively. The second opposite party adduced evidence and 2 documents produced. R1 is a report from police department and R2(Series) are lawyer notice and reply notice marked as Ext.R1 and Ext.R2(s) respectively.

 

Heard,

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The Point:- We have heard both counsels and have gone through evidence on records. We have considered that the complaint is reasonable. The purchase of the phone is admitted by Ext.P1. There is no other evidence from the opposite parties against the purchase and bill amount. The main allegation of the complainant was that there is no network signals seen in the phone at the place of the point of his house situated. Hence he approached the first opposite party.

 

(Cont....4)

 

-4-

 

 

As per the direction from the first opposite party he approached the second opposite party. The second opposite party has received the phone and updated the software. It is considered by service record marked as Ext.P2. The second opposite party deposed that “network complaint ആയിരുന്നു. Software update ചെയ്തു കൊടുത്തു. വീണ്ടും പരാതിയുമായി വന്നു. Customer ന്റെ സമ്മത പ്രകാരം mother board മാറ്റികൊടുത്തു”. From the deposition, we understood that he knows that the phone has only network problem. It is said in their written version also. If the phone has only notwork problem it was not necessary to replace the mother board. There is no document produced that the consent received from the complainant for replacing the mother board.

 

As per the perused evidence, there is no proof about manufacturing defect of the phone. Actual problem is that there was no network signals seen in the phone. The first opposite party had awareness about the network problem of the phone. So the first opposite party referred the complainant to the second opposite party. The second opposite party is the manager of authorized service center of the mobile company. It is admitted in their version. The actual problem of the phone was not ascertained by the first and second opposite parties. The first opposite party is liable to ascertain and solve the actual problem of the phone. The second opposite party is also liable, because the service was not done satisfactorily, else the second opposite party replaced the mother board without the consent of the complainant. So the first and second opposite parties are liable to resolve the complaint of the phone. But they did not take proper initiative to resolve the problem.

 

Hence the complaint is allowed. The first opposite party is directed to replace the mobile phone with new one of similar description or refund the price of the product Rs.12,500/- and also pay Rs.2000/- as cost of the litigation and the second opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation to the

 

 

(Cont....5)

-5-

complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which this amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realization.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of January, 2020.

 

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., PRESIDENT -IN -CHARGE

Sd/-

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 -Albin Santhosh

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 -Anil M.G.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - The bill

Ext.P2 - The service record

Ext.P3 - The lawyer notice dated 17/02/2018

Ext.P4 - The postal receipt

Ext.P5 - The AD card

Ext.P6 - The reply notice from the second opposite party

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 -A report from police department

Ext.R2(Series)- Lawyer notice and reply notice

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT