IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KOLLAM

Dated this the    23^rd  Day of  July   2022

  Present: -  Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, Bsc, L.L.B(President I/C)

                   Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

                                                    CC.247/2021

Joykutty                                                               :         Complainant

S/o Thomas, Jasmine Palace

Near Perayam Temple

Perayam Village

Kollam Taluk

V/s

Supplier                                                                :         Opposite parties

Ilara Logistics

Center Point 19/44/18

MG Road 19 MG Road

Poothole, Thrissur

Pin-680004, Kerala.

FINAL    ORDER

Smt.S.Sandhya Rani (President I/C)

          The complainant has purchased an I Kall 4G Android Mobile Phone(K800) for Rs.5200/- from Naaptol/ILARA LOGISTICS through opposite party supplier, ILARA LOGISICS, CENTRE POINT,19/44/18, M.G.Road, Poothole, Thrissur as per invoice No.22741L0064722 dated 12.09.2021.  But the phone was not in working condition since its purchase.  Though the complainant has intimated the opposite party regarding the malfunctioning of the mobile phone, the opposite party did not take any initiative either to replace or to repair the same, that the opposite party not even cared the grievances suffered by the complainant.  According to the complainant the opposite party deceived him by selling such a defective mobile phone of substandard quality by getting an amount of Rs.5200/-.  Even though the complainant has purchased a mobile phone worth Rs.5,200/-, he couldn’t make even a single call with the same which caused much mental agony apart from financial loss.  Hence the complainant is entitled to get the price of the mobile phone  Rs.5200/- along with Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered by him.  Hence the complaint.

          Though notice was issued opposite party remained absent hence set exparte.  The complainant filed proof affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 and A2 documents.  Heard the complaint and perused the records.  Ext.A1 is the user manual of   I Kall Android Mobile.  Ext.A2 is the tax invoice dated 12.09.2021.

          The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.A1 and A2 documents would establish the case of the complainant.  Though the complainant has purchased an I Kall 4G Android Mobile (K800) blue colour mobile phone by paying Rs.5200/- to opposite party, he could not make a single call with the same because it was not in working condition since its purchase.  That the purpose of purchase of the mobile phone became invain.

          From Ext.A2 invoice produced it is evident that the complainant has purchased the alleged mobile phone from Naaptol/ILARA LOGISTICS, but Naaptol is not in the party array.  Even though the supplier ILARA LOGISTICS has accepted the notice issued from CDRC they didn’t appear before the Commission.  Hence set exparte.

          It is pertinent to note that though the opposite party has received notice issued from this Commission they didn’t take any initiative to examine the phone with an intend to identify whether the damage caused to the phone is either due to manufacturing defect or due to customer induced defect while the burden of proving the same is casted upon them.

          It is further to be pointed out that there exists a commonly accepted rule that the opposite party is under an obligation to keep the alleged mobile phone in perfect working condition at least for a period of 12 months from its date of purchase even in the absence of warranty or guarantee.

          In the circumstances it is evident that there exists deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.  Hence opposite party is legally bound either to repair or to replace the defective mobile phone.

          In view of the materials available on record we are of the view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party and thereby the complainant has sustained mental agony apart from monitory loss.  Hence the complainant is entitled to get a defect free new mobile phone of the same price or its value along with compensation for mental agony suffered by him.

          In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms.

1. Opposite party is directed to cure the defect of the mobile phone free of cost or substitute a new mobile phone of the same value and specification within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for which the complainant is directed to produce the defective mobile phone to the opposite party within 15 days of getting a copy of this order.
2. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.7000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony sustained.
3. Opposite party is directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to realize Rs.5200/- being the cost of the mobile phone plus Rs.7000/- as compensation along with interest from opposite party and their assets.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the    23^rd  day of  July   2022.

S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

(President I/C)

Stanly Harold:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

Senior Superintendent

INDEX  

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.A1:       User manual

Ext.A2:       Tax invoice.

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for   opposite party:-Nil

S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

(President I/C)

Stanly Harold:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

Senior Superintendent