CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30^th day of April, 2016

PRESENT :  SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT

               :  SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER                      Date  of filing: 23/01/2016

               : SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER

CC /11/2016

Saseendran.V,

“Krishnamritham”,

Kurudikkad,   Kanjikode West Post                             :        Complainant

Near Kurudikkad Bus Stop,

Palakkad, Pin-678 623, Kerala

(Working in United Breweries India Ltd)

(By Adv.K.Dhananjayan)   

                                                          Vs

1. The Manager/Proprietor,

    Vinayaka Communication,                                     :        Opposite parties

    445A KRS Towers,  7^th Street Extension,

    Gandhipuram, Coimbatore Pin.641 012.

2.  Redmi Mobile Co.Ltd,

     Manufacturers of Redmi Mobile

     Represented by sold by

     WS Retail Services pvt.Ltd

     Ozone Manay Tech Park,

     No-56/18,B Block, 9^th Floor,

     Garvebhavipalaya, Hosur Road,

     Bangalore, Karnataka  560068

O R D E R

By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,

The complainant in this case  has purchased a mobile telephone handset FSN MOBE56FTBEVGSMKSWID:V125857 by paying Rs.6,999/- as total price on 22/05/2015. The above product is ordered through Flipcart.com which is an online internet market company.  The manufacturer has delivered the product through courier service to the complainant. The complainant began to use the set by strictly following  the instruction manual and directions of usage with all care.  Even after using it so carefully by 10/08/2015, the mobile hand set began to discharge even after fully charged.  The result and impact of that conversation would frequently disrupt and call drop is the ultimate result.  Therefore as the 1^st opposite party is the authorized agent the said  hand set has been entrusted to the 1^st opposite party on 20/08/2015 for carrying necessary repairs.  Subsequently as the handset is damaged well within the warranty period, the 1^st opposite party has accepted the mobile handset of the complainant and has issued a receipt stating as job sheet bearing number A 975.  In the receipt 1^st  opposite party has clearly stated that the defect occurred is within the warranty period.  But after that when the complainant has enquired about the repair and for returning the handset after due service, they had not returned it till this date.  The complainant submits that he has contacted the 1^st opposite party several times for getting a proper response, but the 1^st opposite party has not responded favourably. The complainant says that even now the defective mobile handset is in the  custody of the 1^st opposite party.  Complainant further submits that as  now a days the mobile  telephone is a matter of  plenty of usage and without which it will affect all day to day function especially of persons who have jobs, the complainant has to substitute another mobile handset for his daily use.  After entrustment of the defective mobile handset to the 1^st opposite party, for the  past 8 months he had faced lot of problems for which 1^st opposite party alone is responsible.  The complainant further submits that the 1^st opposite party has contacted the complainant and told him that the mobile hand set is repaired and is ready for use and ordered him to take it back.  But the complainant has lost confidence of the submissions of the 1^st opposite party and doesn’t inspire trust that even after the repair it would be worthy for use.  The handset manufactured by Redmi i.e the 2^nd opposite party is a substandard product and is unfit for meeting the necessary requirements of the complainant.  Hence the complainant demands to hand over a brand new set free of cost with additional warranty for 1 year.  The opposite parties are legally bound to honour the demands made by the complainant, since both opposite parties have committed deficiency in service against the complainant.  The attitude of the opposite parties towards the complainant  is so callous and unjustifiable.    The opposite parties have supplied sub standard product and due that the  complainant  has sustained intolerable inconvenience and  damages and it has not served any purpose for which it has been purchased.  As the 1^st opposite party is the authorized dealer of the 2^nd opposite party and have acted as an authorized dealer and agent of Redmi the manufacturer of the  disputed mobile handset, both of the opposite parties are legally responsible to  compensate the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice they have committed.  The complainant had sent a lawyer notice on 03/12/2015 asking the opposite parties to pay an amount Rs.6,999/- plus Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and also to pay Rs.1,000/- as cost.  They have deliberately  refused the notice sent by the complainant.  Hence it can be presumed that the opposite parties has not  interested to settle the grievance of the complainant amicably and hence this complaint.  The  complainant had approached before this Forum seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.6,999/- along with 12% interest from 22/05/2015 onwards till date of full realization and to pay Rs.20,000/- as damages for mental agony and deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties and also to pay the cost of this litigation. 

          Notice was issued to the opposite parties for appearance.  Both the opposite parties failed to appear before the Forum inspite of accepting the notice.  Hence they were called absent and set exparte.  Complainant filed chief affidavit along with documents.  Ext.A1-A6 was marked from the part of the complainant.  Heard the complainant. 

The following issues are to be considered.

          1.   Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite

                parties?

          2.   If so, what are the reliefs and cost? 

 ISSUES 1 & 2

We  had perused the documents produced before the Forum as well as chief affidavit filed by the complainant.  From Ext.A1 it is obvious that the 1^st opposite party had received the mobile handset of the complainant for repair  during the warranty period on 20/08/2015.  From Ext.A4 and A5 it is evident that complainant had paid Rs.6,999/- from his account at  State Bank of Travancore, Pudussery Branch  by way of consideration to the  2^nd opposite party.  The case of the complainant is that even after using it is so carefully the mobile handset began to discharge.  Even after full charge the battery gets discharged and impact of the conversation would frequently disrupt and ultimately  the call will be dropped.  He had also submitted that he had contacted the 1^st opposite party several times for getting the mobile handset repaired but there was not proper response.  Admittedly the mobile handset purchased by the complainant is within the custody of the 1^st opposite party and they have not accepted the lawyer notice issued by the complainant.  As the opposite parties have not raised any objection to dispute the allegations and averments of the complainant it can be seen that there is nothing to disbelieve or discredit the averments and evidence tendered by the complainant. 

 Hence the complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite parties 1 and 2  jointly and severally to pay Rs.6,999/- (Rupees Six thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) along with 9% interest from 22/5/2015 till date of full realization along with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as damages for the mental agony and deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties and also to pay Rs.1,500/-(Rupees One thousand Five hundred only)  towards cost of this litigation.  The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to get an additional interest of 9% for the compensation amount from the date of order till realization.  

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th  day of April, 2016.

                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                    Shiny.P.R

                                                                     President

                                    Sd/-                                                                                   Suma. K.P

                                                                                 Member

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                              V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                                                                       Member

                                                A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1- Receipt No.975 dtd. 20/08/2015 issued by the 1^st opposite party evidencing receipt of mobile hand set of the complainant for repair during the warranty period.

Ext.A2- Copy of the lawyer notice dtd.03/12/2015 sent to the 1^st opposite party by complainant’s counsel

Ext.A3 –Returned lawyer notice with endorsement “refused” along with ack.card dtd.14/12/2015

Ext.A4- Photocopy of the 1^st page of the pass book of the complainant issued from SBT, Pudussery Branch bearing S.B.A/c.No.67180699321 dtd.19/04/2012

Ext.A5- Relevant page of the pass book issued from SBT, Pudussery Branch bearing S.B.A/c.No.67180699321  evidencing deduction of Rs.6,999/- by the 2^nd opposite party from the complainant’s account

Ext.A6- Retail Invoice/ Bill issued by OP2 to the complainant.  dtd.22/5/2015

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Nil

Witness marked on the side of complainant

Nil     

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost Allowed

Rs.1,500/- as cost.