D.O.F:16/09/2021

                                                                                                   D.O.O:21/08/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.157/2021

Dated this, the 21^st day of August 2023

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                          : PRESIDENT

SMT.BEENA.K.G                              : MEMBER

Faisal A.P. @ Fais, aged 44 years,

S/o Ibrahim Muhammad, Fathima Manzil

Poochol, South trikaripur (Post) and Village,

PIN 671310 Hosdurg Taluk,                                                                      : Complainant

And

1. The Manager, AHB Group, Anis Mobiles

247/B, Angappan Naiken Street, Mannady

Near firthous Bakery, Chennai 600001.

2. Shremanth.M, Senior Manager,

Flipkart internet Pvt Ltd, Embassy tech Village

8^th Floor Block ‘B’, Devarabeesanhalli Village,

Varthur Hobbli, Bangaluru East Taluk

Bengaluru, 560103.                                                                       : Opposite Parties

ORDER

SRI.KRISHNAN.K  : PRESIDENT

            The complaint filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  The case of the complainant is that he purchased mobile phone Redmi Note 5 pro from opposite party No.2 by online.  The seller provided one year warranty.  He paid Rs. 7,999/- as its price. The complainant noticed that battery life of this set is very weak, draining within one hour of its recharge and it became off mode.  It is purchased for online education of his child.  Many complainants made, all in vain.  The opposite party is liable to replace the product.  He suffered mental agony and loss due to the act of opposite party.  Study of the child became impossible.  Whole family suffered loss.  The complainant claims Rs. 60,000/- as compensation and replacement of the product with brand new one. 

            The opposite party No.2 filed written version contenting that flipkart platform is an e-commerce platform as an intermediatory.  Phone is not sold by opposite party No.2 and it has no role in providing warranty of the product.  They are bound by the terms of the contract only.  There is no privity of contract between complainant and opposite party No. 2, no liability to meet the claim of the case.

            The complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined as PW1, he produced Ext. A1 tax invoice.  No evidence adduced by opposite party. 

Following points arised for consideration in the case:

1. Whether there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset and whether complainant is entitled for replacement of the mobile handset or refund of its price.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of opposite party? Whether complainant is entitled for compensation?  If so, for what relief?

The case of the complainant is that the mobile handset purchased by him having manufacturing defect.  And seeking its replacement and compensation for deficiency in service.  To prove manufacturing defect, no report is available from an expert in the case.   When manufacturing defect is alleged, it is the duty and responsibility to prove as to what is the manufacturing defect to the product.  Unless and until complainant proves the manufacturing defect, no relief can be granted on the ground of manufacturing defect hence the claim for replacement/refund of its price is rejected.

So far as claim for compensation is concerned complainant alleges deficiency in service in the part of the opposite parties.  Opposite party No. 1 did not even file counter or version in the case.  Even opposite party No. 2 did not adduce or produce any evidence that they have not taken any steps or action to redress the grievance of the complainant relating to the problems suffered by him while using the mobile handset.  As far as the complainant is considered, he purchased the mobile handset through online mode and he got it delivered and delivered through opposite party No.2.  When complainant raises the allegations of defect in quality and performance of the mobile handset the opposite parties are legally bound to attend and repair the product to make it perfectly all right for use by the complainant.  Therefore there is deficiency in service and negligence of the opposite parties thereby complainant suffered not only mental tension, agony sufferings and he could not enjoy the facility by using the mobile handset for the purpose of providing education services to his child at the need of the hour and thereby complainant also suffered financial loss and thus complainant is entitled to compensation for the same.

The complainant claimed Rs. 60,000/- as compensation which is on the higher side not supported by any acceptable evidence in this regard.  Considering the nature and circumstances of the case commission finds that an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) is found reasonable amount of compensation.

In the result, complainant is allowed in part, opposite party No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) for deficiency in service and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) for cost of litigation within 30 days of the order.

     Sd/-                                                                                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                       PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1 – Tax invoice

Witness cross-examined

PW1 - Faisal A.P.

     Sd/-                                                                                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                       PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

JJ/