DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L. ..… MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,B.Com. ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.98/2022
THIS TUESDAY, THE 27th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
Mr.M.K.Hidayatullah, Advocate,
No.68, Law Chambers,
Madras High Court,
Chennai -600 104. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.The Managing Director,
Poorvika Mobile World,
Corporate Office,
No.32, Developed Plot N.P.
SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Ekkaduthangal, Chennai -600 032.
2.J.Hepziba,
Poorvika Mobile Private Limited,
No.32, A.G.R.Platina Developed Plot N.P.
SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Ekkaduthangal, Chennai -600 032.
3.Poorvika Mobiles Private Limited,
Represented by its Branch Manager P.Manokar,
Old No.122, New No.58,
Ground floor, Shop No.1,
Armenian Street,
Opp; High Court, Chennai 600 001. …..opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.K.H.Mohamed Afzal, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite parties : exparte
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 23.09.2022 in the presence of M/s.K.H.Mohamed Afzal, Advocate counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties were set exparte and upon perusing the pleadings and evidences produced by the complainant this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties for selling a defective mobile charger to the complainant along with a prayer directing the opposite parties to replace the mobile charger and to pay compensation and cost of the proceedings.
Summary of the facts culminating into complaint:-
The crux of the complaint was that the complainant had purchased a Samsung mobile charger for Rs.499/- under invoice No.SI/3PAR/319 dated 05.04.2017 from the 3rd opposite party. Right from the first day of purchase the mobile charger’s pin did not fit in tight well with the mobile phone socket resulting in long duration for getting charged. Thus the mobile charger suffered with some inherent manufacturing defect. Let with no other option the complainant sent back the mobile charger to the opposite parties for repair for which the 3rd opposite party’s staff promised that they will rectify the defect in the charger or otherwise replace the same with a new charger on 24.08.2017. Thus on the promise made by the 3rd opposite party the complainant’s person handed over the defective mobile charger with the original bill on promise that the mobile charger would be rectified or would be replaced on or before 25.09.2017. On 03.10.2017 the complainant visited the showroom of the 3rd opposite party but he was ill treated by the staffs and never returned the charger to the complainant. Only piece of evidence for entrustment of the mobile charger was the visiting card given by the 3rd opposite party. Thus let with no other option a legal notice was issued to the opposite parties calling upon them to rectify and return the mobile charger or to replace the same along with apology. Only the 2nd opposite party sent a reply notice requesting the complainant to bring the invoice and warranty for any further assistance. After issuing a rejoinder to the earlier legal notice alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the present complaint was filed for the reliefs as mentioned below:
To replace the mobile phone charger with a fresh piece;
To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service;
To pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards damages and compensation for causing the mental agony, anguish, mental trauma etc.,
To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the charges of the legal notice incurred by the complainant;
To pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards cost and expenses of the complaint;
Direct the opposite parties to provide the complainant/consumer compensatory and punitive damages of Rs.50,000/- under section 14(1)(d) provision of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
On the side of the complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A12. Despite service of notice the opposite parties remind absent and they did not contest the case by filing any written version. Hence they were set exparte on 04.02.2020.
Points for consideration:-
Whether the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in respect of selling a defective charger suffering with inherent manufacturing defect and in not rectifying the defect or replacing the same has been successfully proved by the complainant?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:
On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of his allegations;
Invoice copy issued by the opposite party to the complainant for the purchase of mobile charger dated 05.04.2017 was marked as Ex.A1;
Visiting card of the Branch Manager P.Manokar of the 3rd opposite party was marked as Ex.A2;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties 1 & 3 dated 04.10.2017 was marked as Ex.A3;
Postal receipts and acknowledgements for proof of service were marked as Ex.A4 to Ex.A6;
Reply sent by J.Hepziba on behalf of the Poorvika Mobile Private Limited dated 01.11.2017 was marked as Ex.A7;
Envelope containing the reply sent by J.Hepziba dated 06.11.2017 was marked as Ex.A8;
Rejoinder legal notice sent by the complainant to J.Hepziba dated 11.01.2018 was marked as Ex.A9;
Communication by the complainant along with the photo stat copy of the invoice dated 05.04.2017 was marked as Ex.A10;
Postal receipt for proof of service was marked as Ex.A11;
Postal acknowledgment card for proof of service was marked as Ex.A12;
It is represented by the learned counsel for the complainant that written arguments may be treated as oral arguments for disposal of the complaint on merits. Thus the commission was constrained to consider the pleadings and materials and written arguments for adjudication and disposal of the complaint on merits.
The sum and substance of the written arguments filed by the complainant is that the Samsung mobile charger purchased vide invoice No.SI/3PAR/319 dated 05.04.2017 from sales person Mr.S.Siva was with same inherent manufacturing defects and the same when entrusted to the 3rd opposite party for rectification of defects on 24.08.2017. Though the sale person promised that the defects would be rectified or in alternative the mobile charger would be replaced they do not so in spite of lapse of one month period which compelled the complainant to issue a legal notice dated 04.10.2017 and for which only the 2nd opposite party replied for the legal notice seeking for the submission of invoice for further action. A rejoinder was also sent by the complainant and for that there was no reply and hence the complainant sought for the present complaint to be allowed as prayed for committing deficiency in service by the opposite parties.
Ex.A1 is the invoice which clearly shows that the Samsung mobile charger was purchased from the 3rd opposite party for a sum of Rs.499/- and the same has been counter signed by the complainant’s person. The visiting card alleged to have been given by the service person of 3rd opposite party in lieu of entrustment of the charger and the promise made by them that the defect would be rectified or replaced has been produced as Ex.A2. The legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties 1 & 3 about non -returning of the mobile charger has been filed as Ex.A3. It is also seen that vide Ex.A7 a reply was sent by one J.Hepziba on behalf of the Poorvika Mobile Private Limited seeking the invoice receipt and warranty details to be produced by the complainant for assisting further. The rejoinder notice sent by the complainant to the said J.Hepziba on behalf of the Poorvika Mobile Private Limited was marked as Ex.A9 in which he has contended that the factum of sale of the defective mobile charger by the newly opened Parrys Branch was not denied by the opposite parties and further upon them to rectify the mobile charger or to return the same to the complainant.
On perusal of the above documents this commission could see that neither the 1st opposite party nor the 3rd opposite party denied the factum of purchase of the mobile charger by the complainant. It is also seen that the legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties which were duly served on them vide Ex.A4 to Ex.A6 but there was no response either to rectify the defective charger and to return it or to replace the same with a new one as it has been amply and successfully proved that the mobile charger purchased vide Ex.A1 has been entrusted with them for repair as it has suffered with some manufacturing defects. The opposite parties also failed to appear before this commission to rebut/defend the allegations levelled against them. It is also the specific contention by the complainant that when he and his representatives visited the sales centre enquiring about the return of charger they were not treated properly. For all the allegations levelled there was no counter defence put forth by the opposite parties. In these circumstances this commission comes to the conclusion that the deficiency in service alleged against the opposite parties has been successfully proved by the complainant by sufficient evidence and thus the point is answer accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite parties.
Point No.2:
As we have held above that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in selling a defective mobile charger and also rectifying the defect the proper relief would be to replace the defective charger with a fresh piece or in alternative to refund the amount with 9% interest from the date of purchase. Though compensation and damage has been claimed under various heads, considering the nature of the complaint and deficiency committed we award Rs.10,000/- as compensation which would be proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further we also award Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties 1 to 3;
a) to replace the defective Samsung Mobile charger with fresh piece within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order or to refund Rs.499/- (Rupees four ninety nine only) with 9% interest from 05.04.2017 till date of realization;
b) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant;
c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 27th day of September 2022
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 05.04.2017 Invoice copy issued by the opposite party to the complainant for the purchase of mobile charger. Xerox
Ex.A2 24.08.2017 Visiting card of the Branch Manager P.Manokar of the 3rd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A3 04.10.2017 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the 1st and 3rd opposite parties. Xerox
Ex.A4 05.10.2017 Postal receipt. Xerox
Ex.A5 05.10.2017 Postal receipt. Xerox
Ex.A6 06.10.2017 Acknowledgement card. Xerox
Ex.A7 01.11.2017 reply sent by J.Hepziba of the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A8 06.11.2017 Envelop containing the reply sent by J.Hepziba of the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A9 11.01.2018 Rejoinder legal notice sent by the complainant Xerox
Ex.A10 31.01.2018 Communication by the complainant along with the photo state copy of the invoice. Xerox
Ex.A11 31.01.2018 Postal receipt. Xerox
Ex.A12 12.02.2018 Acknowledgement card. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite parties:- Nil
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
