IN THECONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,  KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE    30^thDAYOF OCTOBER2021

         Present: -Sri.E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

                          Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member

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

                             CC.No.234/2018

Suchitha S., aged 32 years,

W/o Harilal, Kinattazhikom,

Kongal, ParavoorP.O.Kollam 691301.

(By Adv.K.M.Anilkumar)                                                        :           Complainant

V/s                                                                                                     

The Authorized Officer,

I Cure Solutions,

Samsung Service Centre,10/1160A, Krishna

Jyothi Building, Kollam.                                                          :          Opposite party

ORDER

Smt.Sandhya Rani, B.Sc, LLB, Member

This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

The complainant has purchased a Samsung A5 mobile having model name SM-A510FZDF5NS on 19.07.2017 and she used the same for two years without any problem.  But after two years the battery of the mobile bulged and due to that bulge of battery back portion of the mobile also broken.  The complainant submitted the mobile with the opposite party for servicing and they issued a bill on 19.07.2018 after mentioning the defects in the defect description column.  Later the opposite party informed the complainant that the display of the said mobile is also damaged so she should pay extra cash as repairing charges.  At the time of handing over the mobile phone to the opposite party there was no problem with respect to its display and thebill of acknowledgment of service issued by opposite party also not mentioned anything regarding the display failure.  The facts being so the complainant directly informed the opposite party that she is not liable to pay for the display defect and it was happened in the absence of due care at the time of servicing the same by the opposite party.  Though the complainant send a legal notice to opposite party on 03.09.2018 regarding the deficiency in service and also informing that it is the duty of the opposite party to rectify the defect of the mobile at free of cost including display damage or else give compensation for the loss caused to the complainant due to negligence on the part of opposite party but they didn’t turn to settle the matter till date.  Hence the complaint.The complainant prays for the following reliefs.

1. To direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant as the value of mobile.
2. To direct the opposite party to give Rs.35,000/- as compensation and allow the complaint to realize the cost of the proceedings and such other reliefs that may deem fit and proper to the nature and circumstances of the case.

Though the notice has been sent and served on the opposite party he has not appeared before the commission nor filed any version.Hence the opposite party has been set exparte.

The Father and power of attorney holder of the complainant has filed proof affidavit and got marked Ext.A1 to A3documents.  Thereafter the complainant has filed I.A 256/2019 seeking to amend the complaint and the same was allowed.  But the learned counsel for the complainant has not carried out the amendment as ordered in the said I.A.

The complainant has filed affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint.  Ext.A1 is the Power of Attorney issued by the complainant in favour of her father Mr.Chithambaran.  Ext.A2 is the acknowledgement of service request dated 19.07.2018  issued by opposite party.  Ext.A3 is unattested copy of AdvocateNotice.  There is nothing on record to show that the original of the said notice was actually sent to the opposite party and he has received the same.  The postal receipt or the postal acknowledgment card are not seen produced to prove that the same has been actually sent and received by opposite party.

Here the complainant has no specific case either in the complaint or in the proof affidavit that she has purchased the mobile phone from the opposite party.  The complainant hasalso not produced the bill/invoice of the mobile phone evidencing the genuineness of her claim that the said mobile phone was purchased two years backfor Rs.35,000/-.  She has also not produced any warranty card and in the absence of warranty card or bill it is doubtful whether the alleged damage is caused within the warranty period or not.It is further to be pointed out that Ext.A2 document would not support the caseof the complainant. As per Ext.A2 acknowledgment of service request the damaged mobile phone was entrusted to the opposite party on 19.07.2018 alleging that “Battery bulged, back glass broken”.  But at the extreme bottom left side the complainant has seen signed as customer beneath the certificate collection of product as“ I certify that the above job has been done to my satisfaction.”  It is to be pointed out that the complainant has no case either in the complaint or in the proof affidavit that the damaged mobile phone is even now in the custody of the opposite party.  Hence the printed wording behind the signature of the complainant it is to be inferred that the complainant has received back the defective mobile phone after setting right the defect stated in that document.  It is to be pointed out that the complainant has no case that the opposite party without removing the bulged battery and replacing the broken back glass and without returning the mobile phone has fraudulently obtained the signature of the original complainant in Ext.A2 document endorsing that the job has been done to the satisfaction of the customer.  There is absolutely no material before the forum/commission to show at least primafacie that the display of the mobile was damaged.  The complainant ought to have ascertained such damage by any other mobile service centre or at least by producing or causing production of the same before this forum/commission.  In view of the reasons stated above we are of the view that the complainant has not successed in establishing at least primafacie that there is any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  Points answered accordingly against the complainant.

In the result complaint stands dismissed.

No costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 30^th day of  October 2021.

S.SANDHYARANI:Sd/-

E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-

                         STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

                                                                                                                                                                                Forwarded/By Order

                                                                               Sr.Superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Complainant filed proof affidavit

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.A1 : Power of Attorney  dated 01.12.2018

Ext.A2  : Acknowledgement of service request dated 19.07.2018

Ext.A3 : Copy of Advocate notice dated 03.09.2018

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Opposite party remains exparte