By. Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:
This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Facts of the complaint in brief:-
On 05.09.2020 the Complainant purchased a Mobile phone paying Rs.20,800/- from the Opposite Party No.1. Within 5 months of its purchase it became out of use due to technical problems. After approaching the seller they advised the Complainant to reset it, as per his direction to the Complainant. Even after resetting it, as told by the seller the defects were not cured. The seller again told the Complainant to approach the Opposite Party No.2. So, the Complainant entrusted the mobile phone to the Opposite Party No.2 as per the advice of the Opposite Party No.1. Seven days after its service the same defects were seen continuously. Consequently the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 but he did not give any assistance. He directed the Complainant to give the mobile phone for servicing elsewhere. The mobile phone was purchased by the Complainant for his learning purpose as he was a student, but he could not use it for that purpose even for the first year of its purchase. Hence the Complainant has approached before this Commission with the following prayers.
- To direct the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.20,800/- being the amount paid by the Complainant for the purchase of the mobile phone.
- To direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.20,000/- being compensation for mental agony and
- To direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.10,000/- being cost of the complaint.
3. Commission registered the complaint and notices were served upon the Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No.1 entered appearance but Opposite Party No.2 and 3 did not appear and hence Opposite Party No.2 and 3 were set ex-parte. Though the Opposite Party No.1 had appeared he did not file version and hence Opposite Party No.1 was also set ex-parte. Proof affidavit was filed by the Complainant, Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 was marked from his side and he was examined as PW1. At the time of examination PW1 reiterated all his allegations.
4. The Opposite Parties had the opportunity to appear before the Commission and contest the case. But they did not do so. So the Commission has no other option than to believe the allegations of the Complainant. Not providing proper after sale servicing to rectify the defects of a mobile phone during warranty period is deficiency in service and hence the Complainant has the right to get back the amount the spent for purchase of the mobile phone, get compensation and cost of the complaint from the Opposite Parties.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and the
- Opposite Party No.1 is directed to refund the selling price of the mobile phone Rs.20,800/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand and Eight Hundred Only) to the Complainant,
- the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are directed to pay @ Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each as compensation for mental agony to the Complainant and
- the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are directed to pay @ Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) each as cost of the complaint to the Complainant.
The above amounts shall be paid by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant within one month from the date of this Order, failing which the Complainant shall have the right to recover the amount together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of this Order by due process of law.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of May 2022.
Date of Filing: 17.09.2021.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Athul. K. Martin. Degree Student.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Invoice. Dt:05.09.2020.
A2. Warranty Card.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
