View 9785 Cases Against Mobile
Ditto Jose filed a consumer case on 18 Nov 2022 against The Care manager,HMID Mobile india in the Thiruvananthapuram Consumer Court. The case no is CC/15/2022 and the judgment uploaded on 31 Dec 2022.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN : PRESIDENT
SMT.PREETHA .G.NAIR : MEMBER
SRI.VIJU.V.R : MEMBER
CC.NO.15/22 (Filed on : 07/01/2022)
ORDER DATED : 18/11/2022
COMPLAINANT
Ditto Jose,
S/o.Jose Joseph,
TC 11/1677 (2), Planthoppu Lane,
Charachira, Thiruvananthapuram – 695003
(Party in person)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
The Care Manager,
HMD Mobile India Pvt Ltd,
Ashoka Estate, Flat No.814, 8th Floor 24,
Bharakhamba Road, New Delhi - 110001
(Exparte)
ORDER
SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR : MEMBER
The complainant had purchased a Nokia 5310 mobile phone from Flipkart on October 20, 2020 for an amount of Rs.3238/-. The phone had a one year replacement warranty which was valid until November 7, 2021. The complainant had registered a complaint that the phone is not working through the toll free number provided. They told him that the phone would be picked up and replaced. But the pickup of the phone never happened. The complainant had collect many times and the reply was that it would be replaced within a week, but they could not even provide the reference number of the pickup even after two months. They deliberately delayed the process and later said that the warranty period is over and the device cannot be replaced. Hence this complaint.
After accepting the notice, the opposite party was absent. So the opposite party was set exparte.
Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents. Exts.P1 and P2 marked.
Issues to be considered are :
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so what is the relief and cost.
Issues
As per Ext.P1 the complainant purchased one handset for an amount of Rs.3238/- from the opposite party on 20/10/2020. It is evident from Ext.P2 series that the complainant had informed the opposite party regarding the defect of mobile phone and also replied by the opposite party that to handover the mobile phone to the logistic team without any accessories. But the complainant stated that the opposite party had not taken back the phone and repaired. The opposite party had not produced evidence to disprove the case of the complainant. In view of the above discussions we find that the act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed.
The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3238/- (Rupees three thousand two hundred and thirty eight only) as the price of handset and pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2500/-(Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization / remittance.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 18th day of November, 2022.
Sd/-
P.V.JAYARAJAN : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
PREETHA .G.NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/-
VIJU.V.R : MEMBER
Be/
APPENDIX
CC.NO.15/22
List of witness for the complainant
PW1 - Ditto Jose
Exhibits for the complainant
Ext.P1 - Copy of tax invoice
Ext.P2 a to Ext.P2 (e) - Copy of e-mail conversations messages
List of witness for the opposite party – NIL
Exhibits for the opposite party - NIL
Court Exhibits - NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.