DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of February 2018
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 16/08/2017
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.120/2017)
Pradeep Kumar.A,
S/o Korakutty,
Chemmanampathy Road,
Odayamkulam (PO), Anamalai,
Pollachi,
Tamilnadu. - Complainant
(By.Adv.P.B.Harris)
V/s
The Manager, - Opposite parties
Fone 4 Communication (India),
Pvt.Ltd, Tharekkad, College Road,
Palakkad.
O R D E R
By Sri. V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
The case of the complainant is that he purchased on 09.09.2016 “i phone 6 plus mobile phone” from the opposite party paying to the opposite party price of the mobile Rs.40,000/-, for screen glass and case Rs.300/- and Rs.3,499/- for mobile protection insurance, additionally for which invoice no.3005 dated.09.09.2016 was given by the opposite party. The opposite party is also said to have told the complainant about the features of the aforesaid model mobile, its durability and insurance cover available for the said mobile against physical damage, liquid damage, theft, data loss, virus attack and assured the complainant of solution within 10 days. For any problem happening to that mobile phone within one year more than once, new mobile phone would be given to the complainant. All insurance matters regarding the mobile would be undertaken by the opposite parties and as per ‘i phone 6 plus mobile Apps daily solution Pvt. Ltd.’ mobile protection scheme, protection would be available to the mobile phone. According to the complainant altogether Rs.43,600/- was paid to the opposite party by the complainant for the mobile phone and insurance. Complainant pleads that while using the mobile phone, on 20.05.2017 it got damaged and was given for repair to the opposite party on 23.05.2017. After getting the mobile phone repaired by the opposite party, within a few days “display problem” occurred to the phone and on 03.06.2017 the same was again handed to the opposite party for repair and after getting it repaired by the opposite party mobile phone was always suffering from “hanging problem” and consequently on 12.06.2017 it was again handed to the opposite party for repair. After getting it repaired “touch problem” occurred to the mobile phone. According to the complainant, there was also damage occurred to the mobile phone when the same was repaired by the opposite party. In order to solve both problems the phone was again given for repair to the opposite party. According to the complainant, after buying the mobile phone from the opposite party the same was given for repair to the opposite party 4 times and opposite party did not replace but only repaired the mobile when it got damaged. Further, at the time of repairing the mobile phone by the opposite party, there occurred damages on the edge part of the phone. Complainant, further, pleads that after returning the disputed damaged mobile phone on 16.06.2017, the same was not received back from the opposite party nor the same was replaced. According to the complainant, although he asked the opposite party to replace the disputed damaged mobile phone, that as per mobile protection scheme, that this scheme was not available was the reply given by the opposite party and mobile phone was not replaced and by collecting Rs.3,499/- additionally for the mobile protection scheme, protection from physical damage, liquid damage, theft, data loss, virus attack would be available and replacement would be available was convinced to the complainant at the time of its purchase. According to the deficiency of service of not replacing the damaged mobile by the opposite party and fraud have occurred. Although complaint was given to the opposite party, no action was taken by the opposite party. Hence, on 17.07.2017 a lawyer notice was caused to be sent to opposite party asking the latter to replace the mobile phone purchased from opposite party or refund the price of that phone plus mobile protection scheme amount, but the opposite party even though received the lawyer notice did not give the new mobile phone in replacement nor refunded the amount demanded by the complainant in the lawyer notice nor give a reply to complainant’s lawyer notice. Complainant pleads that due to the fraudulent deeds of the opposite party, complainant suffered a monetary loss of Rs.43,800/- and incurred Rs.1,000/- notice expense and travelling expenses for coming from Pollachi to Palakkad for this purpose. Hence, the complainant prays to this Hon’ble Forum to direct the opposite party to replace the ‘i phone 6 plus mobile phone’ or refund its price plus insurance amount of Rs.3,800/- plus 12% interest there on. In addition, to compensation for mental agony of Rs.30,000/- and notice expense of Rs.1,000/- should also be paid by the opposite party.
Complaint was admitted and notice was sent to opposite party to enter appearance and file version. The notice was returned stating “no such address”. Fresh notice to opposite party was issued and this notice also was returned stating “left”. Notice was also issued to supplemental opposite party and served, his name was also called absent and was set ex-parte.
Complainant filed chief affidavit and Exts.A1 to A6 and Ext.A7 series which were marked from the part of the complainant.
The following issues are considered in this case.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service and /or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite party?
- If so, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief and cost?
Issues No.1 & 2
The case of the complainant is that he purchased from the opposite party a mobile phone, “i phone 6 plus mobile phone” on 09.09.2016 as per invoice marked as Ext.A1 which shows total amount of Rs.43,800/- (Rupees forty three thousand eight hundred only) paid by the complainant to opposite party which includes invoice price of the mobile, amount for insurance coverage and cost of screen glass and case. The amount of Rs.3,499/- (Rupees three thousand four hundred and ninety nine only) was paid for insurance coverage and marked as Ext.A2 which is ‘Apps daily mobile protection for handsets upto Rs.40,000/-’. Opposite party gave the complainant promise that if any complaint arises to the mobile, opposite party will solve it within ten days and if the complaint of the mobile phone still persists for more than one time, opposite party will replace the same. The mobile phone got damaged on 20.05.2017 and it was given for repair to the opposite party on 23.05.2017. The mobile phone was again damaged and given for repair on 03.06.2017 to the opposite party, the same was again damaged and given for repair to the opposite party on 12.06.2017. On getting damaged further, the mobile phone was again given for repair to the opposite party on 16.06.2017. Exts.A3 to A6 shows the job sheets and invoice details of the repair of the said mobile phone, accepted by the opposite party for repair. Complainant pleads that on the basis of the promise given to the complainant at the time of purchasing mobile phone and taking insurance from the opposite party he has purchased the mobile phone but the opposite party did not either return the damaged mobile phone handed to the opposite party finally for repair or to replace the same with a brand new same model mobile phone or to refund the price of the mobile phone plus insurance amount which shows commission of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of opposite party.
From the affidavit and documentary evidences filed before this Forum, we understand that the complainant is seen to have purchased a brand new “i phone 6 plus mobile phone” from the opposite party. It is also observed that the mobile phone purchased by the complainant from the opposite party has become damaged within 9 months from the date of its purchase from the opposite party and for which protection is also seen given by the opposite party against various damages; but we view that inspite of occurrence of repeated problems to the said mobile phone pointed out by the complainant to the opposite party, the latter is seen not able to repair the mobile phone perfectly and is also seen to have failed to replace the disputed damaged mobile phone, even though opposite party has promised and assured replacement in the event of repeated problems occurring to the said mobile phone. Hence, these acts on the part of opposite party clearly prove that grave deficiency in service and unfair trade practice have been seen committed by the opposite party. In the result the complaint is allowed.
We direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant total amount of Rs. 43,800/- (Rupees Forty Three Thousand Eight Hundred only) paid by him to the opposite party for purchasing the disputed mobile phone as per tax invoice dated.09.09.2016 issued to the complainant by the opposite party; in addition, the opposite party is also hereby ordered to pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony suffered by him plus cost of proceedings incurred by him.
This order shall be executed within one month from the date of receipt of this order; otherwise interest at 9% p.a on the total amount due should also be paid to the complainant from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of February 2018.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext,A1 - Original Tax Invoice No.3005 dated.09.09.2016 issued by Fone 4 Communications
India, Pvt.Ltd to the complainant.
Ext.A2 - ‘Apps daily mobile protection for hand sets upto Rs.40,000/-.’ Ext.A3 - Original Job sheet dated.23.05.2017 issued by Fone 4 Communications
India, Pvt.Ltd to the complainant invoice No.1030.
Ext.A4 - Original Job sheet dated.03.06.2017 issued by Fone 4 Communications
India, Pvt.Ltd to the complainant invoice No.1069.
Ext.A5 - Original Job sheet dated.12.06.2017 issued by Fone 4 Communications
India, Pvt.Ltd to the complainant invoice No.1157.
Ext.A6 - Original Job sheet dated.16.06.2017 issued by Fone 4 Communications
India, Pvt.Ltd to the complainant invoice No.1165.
Ext.A7 series - Photo copy of lawyer notice dated.17.07.2017 sent by the complainant’s
Advocate to opposite party, postal receipt and acknowledgement card
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost plus compensation for mental agony – Rs.5,000/-
