IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 05th day of May, 2022.
Filed on 18.12.2018
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- C.K.lekhamma, B.A.L, LLB (Member)In
CC/No.326/2018
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. K.Sathyan , 1. The Manager
S/o P.K.Kumaran Lava International Ltd
Krishnakripa Corporate Office
Kallimel Muri, A-56, Bolck-A,Sector-64
Vettiyar Village Noida-201301
(Adv. Saji.S.K) (Adv. Jettin.K.J)
2. The Proprietor
Play Store, East of Mitcher Jn.
Mavelikkara
(Exparte)
ORDER
SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
1. Brief facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:-
On 12.08.2018, the complainant purchased a Lava Z60 mobile phone of 1st opposite party worth Rs.5,000/- with the 2nd opposite party. Immediately after the purchase the handset becomes defective. Since it has come to a morbid condition, on 30.08.2018, the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party with his grievance and entrusted the handset with him, and pursuantly he has done some repairing works and returned it to the complainant on the same date itself issuing a receipt of work order No.268. The 2nd opposite party informed that it had been cured. But on 31.08.2018 the very next day the handset became inanimate. The complainant approached the 2nd opposite party again but he did not express any positive attitude to deal with the complainant or to cure the issue, rather he tried to avoid the complainant on lame excuses. Thereafter, the complainant constantly approached the 2nd opposite party but had no avail. Eventually the 2nd opposite party disclosed the complainant that they are helpless in curing a manufacturing defect. During this entire period the product runs through a valuable warranty period. On 18.09.2018 the complainant issued legal notice to both the opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party accepted the notice on 19.09.2018 itself, but has no response till date. The opposite parties sold out a substandard imperfect product to the consumer and further they have committed a gross violation of duty and norms in warranty agreement. The product had some inherent defect and they sold it out to the complainant with the full knowledge of its defect and subsequently the 2nd opposite party committed deficiency of service as well. The 2nd opposite party arrogantly behaved and with some dubious clandestine interest he managed to sell the defective product to the complainant. The complainant suffered loss and injury on account of depravation, harassment, mental agony.
Hence the complainant is seeking following reliefs:-
- Direct the opposite parties to replace the handset (E dual SIM GSM / WCDMA/LTE with related accessories) with a brand new one, or in the alternate, directing them to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- being the value of the product to the complainant.
- Direct the opposite parties to pay the complainant Rs.10,000/- as the compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of refund the price of the disputed hand set?
- Whether opposite parties have committed deficiency in service if so what is the quantum of compensation?
- Reliefs and cost?
-
-
On perusal of Ext.A1 invoice dated 12.08.2018, it revealed that the complainant purchased the disputed mobile phone for an amount of Rs.5,000/- and thewas not working. The complainant had handed over the same to the 2nd opposite party, the dealer for rectification. In Ext.A2 work order dated 30.08.2018 in which it is mentioned that “delayed in power on and not charging”.Complainant alleged that after the said service made by the 2nd opposite party the mobile phone again showed defects.Consequently the complainant sent Ext.A4 lawyer’s notice dated 18.09.18 to the opposite parties.But opposite parties did not respond positively.As per the proceedings opposite party did not file version and hence declared them exparte.
Opposite parties have given sufficient opportunity to substantiate their part with convincingevidence.But they did not do that.Therefore the evidence of the complainant remained unchallenged.The opposite party did not bother to solve such genuine request of the complainant.Hence we hold both opposite parties, the manufacturer and dealer, are guilty for gross deficiency in service.Hence we direct the 1st opposite party to refund the amount of the handset. Found that both opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for supplying the defective goods and thereafter not replacing the same or to remove its defect.
-
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and direct as follows:-
- The 1st opposite parties is liable to refund the amount of the disputed hand set amounting to Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand ) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.
- The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.2,500/- each towards compensation for deficiency in service to the complainant. Failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt of this order till realization.
- Both opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1000/- each by way of litigation cost to the complainant.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 05th day of May, 2022
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma (Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - GST Invoice dtd. 12 /8/2018
Ext.A2 - Copy of work order
Ext.A3 - Copy of warranty certificate
Ext. A4 - Copy of Legal Notice
Ext.A5 - Copy of Postal Receipt
Ext.A6 - Copy of Acknowledgment Card
Evidence of the opposite parties:- NIL
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
