DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD

Dated this the 13^th   day of  May, 2022

Present  :  Sri.Vinay Menon V., President        

             :   Smt.Vidya.A., Member

             :   Sri. Krishnankutty.N.K.,Member            

    Date of filing: 16/06/2018

                                           CC/77/18

    Aditya.T.P                                                -               Complainant

    S/o T.Parthasarathi,

    Lakshmi, Kanniyampuram Post,

    Ottapalam-679 101

    (By Adv. U.Muhammed Musthafa)

                                                          Vs

    1. Huawei Technology Company Ltd               -             Opposite Parties

        Rep. by Managing Director,India Region

        Head Quarters, 14^th Floor, Tower C,

        Unitech Cyber Park,Sector 39,

        Gurgaon,Haryana-122002.

  2.   Manager Huawei Technology Company Ltd,

        Kerala Circle Office,50/1107,1^st,2^nd,3^rd Floor,

        Manjooran Estate,Cheranallur Road,

        Edapally,Cochin-682 024.

  3. SJS Mobile Phone Service Centre,

      Authorised Service Centre for Huawei

      Honor Mobile Phones,Archana Business Centre,

      V.H.Road,Palakkad-678 001.

      (By Adv. Vijaya)

                                                 O R D E R

By Smt.Vidya.A., Member

1.Brief facts of the complaint

The complainant purchased a mobile hand set Honor 9i RNEL22 which is manufactured by the 1^st opposite party on 21^st January 2018 for an amount of Rs.17,999/- through flipkart. The mobile set had a warranty for 1 year from the date of purchase. On 28^th April 2018, when the complainant was using the mobile phone with a battery charge around 50%, the phone turned off suddenly. Thereafter the complainant made several attempts to turn on the mobile; but all invain. Then he attempted to charge the mobile, but the indication light was not getting on. So he approached the 3^rd opposite party who is the authorised service centre of 1^st opposite party for repairing the phone and they informed him that they are handing over the phone to the 2^nd opposite party for necessary repairs. Later on, when he contacted the 3^rd opposite party, they informed him that no service warranty can be granted or the mobile set cannot be replaced as the defect was not a manufacturing defect. They told him that the mother board and all major components has to be changed and it will cost around Rs.12,000/- for repair. The 3^rd opposite party refused to endosure the nature of defect and insisted that the mobile can be returned without any terms and conditions. In the Job sheet provided by them, they endorsed the complaint as ‘dead’. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for the loss caused to him due to the unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties. The complainant lost all his contacts, many important project documents and data because of the defect in the phone. Even though he contacted the opposite parties through mails, nothing was done by them for resolving the problem. The claim of the complainant was for the rectification of the defect in the phone under warranty. The 3^rd opposite party who is in custody of the mobile phone from 30^th April 2018, did not inform the complainant regarding the nature of defect and status of the hand set even after his repeated requests. This is an act of grave deficiency in service. So this complaint is filed for directing the opposite parties to replace the defective phone with a new one or to refund the amount of Rs.17,999/- being the cost of the mobile, and to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for their deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- as compensatory cost.

2.       After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to all the opposite parties. Since the opposite parties failed to file vakalath, they were set exparte at the first instance. Later on they filed vakalath and petition to set aside exparte order along with version. It was allowed and the version was taken on file.

3.       Main contentions of the opposite parties in their version.

1^st opposite party is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of mobiles, digital products and other accessories. 2^nd opposite party is their Kerala Circle Office and 3^rd opposite party, their authorised service centre.

   It is admitted that the complainant purchased a mobile hand set manufactured by the 1^st opposite party on 21/01/2018 on payment of Rs.17,999/-. On 30/04/2018 the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party with a complaint that the mobile is not working properly and got ‘dead’ while using it. The 3^rd opposite party forwarded the handset to 2^nd opposite party for repair and on inspection they found water presence inside the handset. Opposite party 3 informed about this to the complainant and also intimated that liquid damage is not covered under warranty and they can only give chargeable service. But the complainant did not agree this and hence his complaint was closed. There is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.

4.       Complainant filed chief affidavit in evidence and  Ext A1 & A2 marked. Opposite parties also filed affidavit and Ext B1 to B4 marked from their side and evidence closed. Opposite parties filed notes of arguments.

5.       Main points to be considered

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service/Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the opposite parties ?

2. Whether the complaint is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?

3. Reliefs as to cost and compensation.

Points 1

6.       It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the 1^st opposite party company- model Honor9Irnel22 for Rs.17,999/- vide invoice dated 21/01/2018.

7.       The complainant’s contention is that the phone suddenly turned off while using it on 28/04/2018. The attempts made by him to switch on the mobile went futile. He tried to charge the battery, but the charge indicating light was not getting on. So he approached 3^rd opposite party, the authorised service centre for repairing it as it was within the warranty period.

          Complainant produced two documents Ext A1 , Tax Invoice showing the purchase of mobile and Ext A2,  the Job Sheet issued by the 3^rd opposite party in which the complaint is noted as ‘DEAD’.

8.       The opposite party’s  contention in this regard is that 3^rd opposite party  forwarded the mobile to the 2^nd opposite party for necessary repairs and on inspection they found water presence inside the handset. 3^rd Opposite party informed about the damage to the complainant and also informed that the liquid damage is not covered under warranty and they can only give chargeable service to the complainant which was not acceptable to him.

                 In order to prove their contention, the opposite parties produced some photographs of the handset which were marked as Ext B2 and Job Sheet which is marked as Ext B3.

9.       The complainant’s main grievance is that after taking the custody of the mobile set, the 3^rd opposite party forwarded it to the 2^nd opposite party for repair and nothing was informed  about the defect in the mobile and its present status. When the complainant contacted them, they informed him after one month that no service warranty is available to the handset and mother board and all major components has to be changed and the complainant has to bear the cost of the repair. But still they were reluctant to endorse the exact problem in the job sheet and they told that the handset can be returned  without any terms and conditions if the complainant  handover the jobsheet. He further contends that the defence of water content in the mobile phone was taken by the opposite parties for the first time in their version. They did not communicate the defect and status of the phone to the complainant.

10.     The contention of the complainant appears to be correct because in the Jobsheet produced and marked from both sides i.e. Ext A2 and Ext B3 did not not show water/liquid damage in the problem description. It is only stated as ‘Dead’ in Ext A2 and in Ext B3, it is stated as problem description(as per customer), function fault.

11.     So it is clear that the opposite parties admit that the mobile phone has some defect and the complainant approached them for repairing it. The opposite parties had taken the defence that the defect is not covered under warranty as there is  presence of water inside the mobile. In order to prove their contention, they have produced photocopy of some photographs which were marked as Ext B2. From Ext B2, we are not able to come to the conclusion of water content in the mobile.  The onus is on the opposite parties to prove the veracity of the contention raised by them. The photographs are not supported by the report of the expert or technician. In the absence of such a report confirming the stand taken by the opposite parties, we are not inclined to accept their defence of water presence inside the mobile. As the phone was within the warranty period, the opposite parties are liable to detect the exact defect in the handset and repair it free of cost or replace it. Since they failed to do this ,they are liable for their deficiency in service.

          Points 2 & 3

12.     The newly purchased mobile became defective within a short period. Complainant purchased it by spending Rs.17,999/-. As per the complaint, because of the defect in the phone, the complainant had to face many problems. He lost important contacts, his project documents to be submitted as part of his studies, class notes saved in the phone etc.This would have definitely caused mental agony. All these happened because of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which they are liable to compensate the complainant.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed.

          1. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund Rs.17,999/- the cost of the handset to the complainant, and to pay Rs.10,000/-  as compensation for their deficiency in service and Rs.5000/- as cost. Any single party may pay the aforesaid amount and claim pro-rata share from other parties.

                The order shall be complied with by the opposite parties within 45 days of the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the order is not complied within 45 days the complainant shall be entitled to a solatium of Rs.250/- per month or part thereof , payable from the date of this order till date of final settlement of this order.

         Pronounced in the open court on this the 13^th   day of May, 2022.

                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                   Vinay Menon V

                                          President

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                          Vidya.A

                                            Member

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                  Krishnankutty.N.K

                                                                                            Member

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext. A1–   Tax Invoice  No.#FABAU11800079885 dated21/01/2018 showing  the

                Purchase of Mobile handset.

Ext.A2 -    Job sheet issued by 3^rd  opposite party  .

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

Ext B1- Board Resolution

Ext B2- Photos of Handset.

Ext B3- Job sheet issued by 3^rd opposite party.

Ext B4- Warranty card

Witness examined from complainant’s side:-

NIL

Witness examined from opposite party’s side:-

NIL

Cost:Rs.5000/-