D.O.F:01/10/2021
D.O.O:28/04/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.169/2021
Dated this, the 28th day of April 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Parthasarathi.M, aged 34 years,
S/o Venugopalan, R/at Swapnam House
Near Amrutha Nursery, Near Ananthampalla, : Complainant
P.O. Thaikadapuram – 670521
(Adv: A. Radhakrishnan)
And
The Manager,
MyG Future, Akbar Building, : Opposite Party
Main Road, North Kottachery,
Kanhangad
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G: MEMBER
The complainant is alleging unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party as the Nokia set purchased from Opposite Party had an issue of deletion of files and photos in the phone automatically. Even though it is got repaired by opposite party, twice, the same complaint repeated.
The brief facts of the case of Sri. Parthasarathi is that the complainant purchased Nokia 7.2 DS 4 GB + 64 GB charcoal Nokia mobile gadget set from the Opposite Party on 30/06/2020 for Rs. 14,405.88/- along with JK Rubber back pouch MSI and PG worth Rs. 100/- Glass screen guard worth Rs. 50.42/- , paper cover mobile Rs. 1/-, GODP Protection plus worth Rs. 1,409, all the above items were billed as per invoice No. 1/KND/2790. The said bill supported by another retail invoice with round of description comes to a total amount of Rs. 19,000/- .Complainant is selective in particular items of Nokia set which can access worldwide facility. He expressed this intention to the salesman in the counter. After some time of purchase the complainant faced with an issue of deletion of files and photos in the phone automatically. Immediately the complainant contacted the Opposite Party and as per their direction, the phone was submitted for repair to the counter. Even though a receipt was asked for the entrustment of phone for repair the Opposite Party not issued any receipt of acceptance of gadget. After one month the mobile set was returned claiming it as repaired. But when the complainant try to use it the same issue repeated. After one month complainant received a call from Calicut service center of Nokia informing that there is a scratch in the screen and he is not entitled to get warranty. At the time of handing over the set to Opposite Party there was no scratch on it. Opposite Party further informed that on payment of Rs. 860/- the screen will be changed . The complainant was constrained to pay Rs. 860 to Opposite Party to get it repaired. But the deletion of files repeated . After two months complainant received the mobile set after repair. The complainant is residing 11 kilometers away from Opposite Party. It is now understood that the intention of Opposite Party is to drag the matter till the warranty or guaranty is over. After the incident Opposite Party not picking the phone of the complainant and not even ready to hear, him. Hence the complaint for necessary redressal. The complainants prayer is to pass an order against Opposite Party directing him to substitute a new set to the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
Notice of Opposite Party served but not turned up. Name of Opposite Party called absent set exparte.
Complainants father Venugopalan filed chief affidavit Ext A1 to A5 documents marked.
The main questions raised in this case are
- Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party as alleged in the complaint.
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief.
- If so what is the relief.
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Nokia mobile set along with other electronic items from Opposite Party on 30/06/2020 for a total sum of Rs. 19,000/- The Complainant was selective in particular items of Nokia set only ,which can access worldwide facility . As per the suggestion of the sales man the device is selected. After few days of purchase, the complainant faced with an issue of deletion of files and photos in the phone automatically. The Opposite Party took one month to repair it and set is returned claiming repaired. But the same issue repeated again. The Opposite Party requested the complainant to submit the phone for repair. After one month the Calicut service centre of Nokia informed the complainant that there is a scratch in the screen and he is not eligible to get the warranty. At the time of handling over the set to Opposite Party there was no scratch on it. Any way complainant was constrained to pay Rs 860/- to get the screen changed. After two months the complainant received back the mobile set. The complainant also questioned the CGST and GST calculated in the bill. There is a cheating of nonpayment of CGS to the Government. Due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties complainant suffered financially and mentally. Ext A1 is the invoice issued by Opposite Party to the complainant on 30/06/2020. Ext A1 (a) is another invoice, Ext A2 is the Tax invoice. Ext A3 is the receipt voucher for Rs. 860/-,Ext A4 is the receipt issued by the Opposite Party to the complainant, Ext A5 is the terms and conditions. We carefully gone through the affidavit and documents produced by the complainant there was a serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party due to the deletion of memory files and photos of complainant. The complainant entrusted the mobile set to Opposite Party twice for repair. But in those two occasions the complainant took inordinate delay and returned the set declaring repaired. But the same issue repeated proves that there was unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party. They failed to repair the mobile set and cure the defects. The negligent act of Opposite Party caused financial loss and severe mental strain to the complainant. Therefore the complainant entitled for the reliefs. The complainant’s prayer is to direct Opposite Party to substitute a new set to the complaint along with a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and cost of Rs. 10,000/- . But the complainants claim is too high and without any basis. considering the facts and circumstances of this case we are of the view that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- is is a reasonable compensation in this case.
In the result complaint is partly allowed directing Opposite Party to substitute a defect free new Nokia mobile set to the complainant with a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) and cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only).
The time for compliance is thirty days from the receipt of copy of the judgement
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 & A1 (a)- Retail Invoice
A2- Tax invoice
A3- Receipt voucher
A4- Receipt
A5- Terms and conditions
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
