DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB    : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Friday the 29^th day of October 2024

CC.181/2019

Complainant

Manoj. K.P,

                        “Mayoogham”,

Vaikkilasseri. P.O,

Vadakara , Kozhikode

PIN - 673104

Opposite Parties

1.              The manager,

My G, 3G Mobile World,

18/3G, Islahi Centre,

Opp. New Bus Stand,

Vatakara - 673101

2.               The manager,

Nokia Care,

Near Keerthi Mudra Theatre,

Edodi, Vatakara – 673101

(OP1 By Adv. Sri. Dilkhush. V.K)

ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT

            This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

On 02/11/2018 the complainant purchased a Nokia mobile handset from the showroom of the first opposite party. It was purchased for the use of his son, who was an engineering student. But there was complaint in the touch screen of the mobile phone and hence it was entrusted to the first opposite party on 29/01/2019 for repairs. The first opposite party sent the handset to the second opposite party, which is the authorised service centre. The mobile handset was returned to the complainant after repairs, but the problem persisted and the device had to be entrusted to the first opposite party 4 times more, who in turn, entrusted the same to the second opposite party for repairs. When the complainant contacted thesecond opposite party for collecting the device after repairs, the second opposite party informed him that it was sent to the authorised service centre ‘Appasons Mobiles’, Kannur for repairs.

3. Thereafter, the complainant sent an email to the company informing all these developments and requesting for replacement of the device. The company then  demanded details of service for considering his request. Accordingly, the complainant requested for the job sheets. But he was provided only one job sheet dated 29/01/2019 by the opposite parties and the remaining four job sheets were not provided to him. It was informed to him that the service centre at Kannur had informed that the display had been broken and the device was returned to him. In fact, at the time of entrustment of the device for repairs or at the time of inspection by the employees of the first opposite party, there was no such defect. Moreover, the service centre at Kannur had informed the complainant that they had not stated that the display was broken. It was also informed that the licence of the second opposite party was cancelled 5 months ago and thereafter they were not accepting the mobile handset sent by the second opposite party for repairs. The opposite parties had suppressed material facts and he was cheated. His son was not able to use the device for one and half months. The study materials stored in the device was lost. The complainant was put to intense mental agony and hardship due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.
4. The first opposite party has resisted the complaint by filing written version.  The second opposite party was set ex-parte.
5. The first opposite party has denied all the allegations and claims made against them in the complaint. It is admitted that on 02/11/2018 the complainant had purchased the device from them, but the allegation that there was complaint to the device is denied. In fact the complainant had not approached them directly. On the other hand, he approached the second opposite party and the first opposite party is not aware of what had transpired between the complainant and the first opposite party. The allegation that the complainant had requested for job sheets and the further allegation that the same were not furnished him is not correct. The allegation with regard to sending of the handset to the authorised service centre at Kannur is false and hence denied. The complainant selected the phone at his own choice. As a dealer, the first opposite party had extended all the assistance to the complainant. There was no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party. No loss or injury was caused or occasioned to the complainant on account of the deficiency of service of the first opposite party. The claim for compensation is not allowable. With the above contentions, the first opposite party prays for dismissal of the compliant.   
6. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
   1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite   

        parties, as alleged?

2.  Reliefs and costs.

7. The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 and A2 on the side of the complainant.  The Manager of the first opposite party filed proof affidavit, but did not make himself available for cross examination by the complainant.
8. Heard.
9. Point No 1:     The complainant is alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The first opposite party is the dealer and the second opposite party is said to be the authorised service centre of the Nokia mobile phone. The complainant purchased a Nokia mobile phone from the first opposite party paying Rs. 11,000/- on 02/11/2018, for the use of his son, who was an engineering student. The device repeatedly showed complaint in the touch screen and all the time it was entrusted to the first opposite party for repairs, who in turn, gave it to the second opposite party. The complainant addressed the manufacturer about the repeated issues and demanded replacement of the device with a new one. The company demanded the service details from the complainant whereupon he contacted the opposite parties for the job sheets. But his grievance is that only one job sheet was given to him and that his mobile hand set was sent to another service centre at Kannur and later returned to him stating that display had been broken. But on contacting the service centre at Kannur the complainant was informed that the licence of the second opposite party was cancelled 5 months ago and that they had not stated that the display was broken. The complainant alleges that the opposite parties have suppressed material facts and he was cheated and there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
10. The complainant was examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the retail invoice dated 02/11/2018 and Ext A2 is the job sheet dated 29/01/2019.
11. The first opposite party alone contested the matter. The second opposite party opted to remain absent and did not file version. The first opposite party has admitted the purchase of the mobile handset by the complainant, but all other allegations are denied. PW1 has categorically asserted and reiterated his grievances before this Commission and even though he was cross examined by the first opposite party, nothing has been brought out to discredit his version. As already stated, the manager of the first opposite party though has filed affidavit, did not make himself available for cross examination and thereafter remained absent. The case of the complainant stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Exts A1 and A2.
12. The act of the opposite parties in supressing the fact that the license of the second opposite party had been cancelled long ago by the manufacturer and their further neglect to provide job sheets amounts to deficiency of service. The complainant purchased the device for the use of his son who was a student. The device could not be used due to the defect and the complainant has a grievance that the study material stored therein was lost. The complainant was put to gross mental agony due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties, for which, he is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this regard. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable. Point found accordingly.
13. Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
    1. CC.181/2019 is allowed in part.
    2. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered.
    3. The payment as afore stated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt  of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall carry an interest of 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.
    4. The liability of the opposite parties to pay the amount shall be joint and several.
    5. No order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 29^th day of October, 2024.

Date of Filing: 30/05/2019

                                                    Sd/-                                                         Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

                                             PRESIDENT                                            MEMBER                                       MEMBER

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext A1 - Copy of the retail invoice dated 02/11/2018.

Ext A2 - Job sheet dated 29/01/2019.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Nil.

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1  -  Manoj. K.P (Complainant).

Witnesses for the opposite party 

Nil.

                                                  Sd/-                                                             Sd/-                                                Sd/-

                                         PRESIDENT                                                 MEMBER                                       MEMBER

True Copy,      

                                                                                                                                             Sd/-

                                             Assistant Registrar.