By Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:

            This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

2.   The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-

The Complainant purchased a Samsung headset level U (Stereo Headset Wireless) having one year warranty from the first Opposite Party for Rs.2,750/- on 29.07.2020 for the use of his wife for attending classes of LP and UP examinations.  But, the sound of this headset became very low on 31.10.2020 during the hearing of classes.  Though, the Complainant attempted to charge the headset, his attempt has been failed.  When he contacted the first Opposite Party through phone, they told to bring the headset. Therefore, on 02.11.2020, he brought it to the shop.  They sent the headset to the second Opposite Party, service centre. Thereafter, on 03.11.2020, the first Opposite Party telephoned him and stated that there is a small scratch on the headset and so it cannot be replaced.  When, the Complainant went to the shop, they showed a small scratch on the headset with the help of a machine.  But, they did not check the headset when he brought it to the shop. So he requested to replace or repair the headset. But, they informed that it cannot be replaced or repaired and it can only be thrown out as useless. First Opposite Party had assured one year warranty. But within 3 months, the headset was damaged. The wife of the Complainant so, could not prepare well for the UPSA and LPSA examinations. Hence, this complaint to get Rs.2,750/- as the price of the defective headset or to get replacement of it with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost.

3. The first and second Opposite Parties are ex-parte.

4.  The third Opposite Party filed version which in short is as follows:-  They had no knowledge about the purchase of the headset by the Complainant from first Opposite Party. This product does carry warranty only which means product shall be repaired free of cost up to the prescribed period from the date of purchase if there is any trouble. The warranty document does not contain any replacement offer and so, it cannot be replaced.  So also warranty conditions are not applicable for any kind of physical damages of the product. The scratch on the headset is a physical damage due to tear and wear after a constant use of 3 months. Moreover, since, there is no mechanical defect on the headset, it cannot be replaced. This Opposite Party is still ready to give services to the Complainant as per warranty condition. So there is no deficiency in service on this Opposite Party. Hence, the complaint is to be dismissed.

5. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of

Opposite Parties?.

2. Reliefs and Costs.

6. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, Ext.A1 to A3 and MO1. Both sides heard.

            7.Point No.1 This is complaint filed by the Complainant to get repair or replacement of a headset which has been purchased by him from the first Opposite Party for Rs. 2750/- on 29.07.2020. He alleged that the sound of headset became very low on 31.10.2020 and since, there was warranty, he approached the first Opposite Party and the first Opposite Party sent it to the second Opposite Party for service on 02.11.2020.  He further contented that on 03.11.2020, he was informed by the first Opposite Party that there is a scratch on the headset and so it cannot be replaced.

8. To prove the case of Complainant, he has given evidence as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 to A3.  Case of the Complainant is that he purchased the headset for the use of his wife for preparing for LP and UP examinations.  Ext.A1 is the tax invoice of the mobile headset.  Ext.A2 and A3 are the copy of Hall Ticket issued by Kerala Public Service Commission to the wife of Complainant. MO1 is the head set. The third Opposite Party contented that the headset got warranty alone and so, it cannot be replaced. According to them, there is no mechanical defect on the headset and thus there is no deficiency of service on their side.  It is to be noted that the Complainant has not adduced any expert evidence to prove that MO1 headset got a mechanical defect.  So also though the Complainant alleged that the headset was sent by first Opposite Party to second Opposite Party for repair, he has not produced any documents to show that MO1 was placed before the second Opposite Party, service centre.  Therefore he failed to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of second and third Opposite Parties.

9. The first Opposite Party is the dealer from whom the Complainant purchased the headset. As we already sated, the first Opposite Party is ex-parte.  The complainant alleged that though he has given MO1 head set to first Opposite Party, they have given back it stating that it cannot be repaired or replaced.  The Complainant himself admitted that MO1 got warranty only.  So, it cannot be replaced. But, evidently MO1 contains a scratch. According to the Complainant the first Opposite Party returned it for the reason that it cannot be replaced or repaired.  The first Opposite Party has not appeared before this Commission to deny the contentions of the Complainant. PW1 specifically alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of first Opposite Party. There is no contra evidence. No reason to disbelieve this evidence. Since, the first Opposite Party has not rebutted this evidence, it is to be accepted and to be held that there is deficiency in service on the part of first Opposite Party.  He filed this complaint for getting back the value of the headset also.  So it is to be held that the first Opposite Party is liable to pay Rs.2,750/- as the value of the headset to the Complainant. Complainant wants to get Rs.10,000/- as compensation. It is an exorbitant amount.  So according to this Commission, Complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,000/- towards compensation.  Thus the point No.1 is answered in favour of Complainant.

10.  Point No.2:  Since Point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, he is entitled to get the reliefs as discussed above.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the first Opposite Party is directed to payRs.2,750/- (Rupees Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only) as the value of MO1 headset and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) towards the compensation to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.  Return MO1 to the first Opposite Party on payment of the amount, otherwise destroy it.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 22^nd day of October 2022.

Date of Filing:-24.11.2020.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1.              Rajesh. K. B.                         UD Typist, MACT Kalpetta.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

                        Nil.     

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1.                  Tax Invoice.                                                              Dt:29.07.2020.

A2.                  Admission Ticket for UPSA.                                

A3.                  Admission Ticker for LPSA.                                 

MO1.             Samsung Level U Headset.                     

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

                        Nil.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.