DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 09th day of May, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya.A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty.N.K.,Member
Date of filing: 10/08/2021
CC/125/2021
P.Sukumaran Nair - Complainant
Kunnath House, Door No.15/79,
Kallepully, Palakkad.
(Party in person)
Vs
1. The Managing Director
HERO Mobile Co. A-56,
Sector-64 NOIDA,
Uttar Pradesh.
(Exparte)
2. M/s Lulu Mobile Point, - Opposite Parties
Ramanathapuram Road,Kallepully,
Palakkad -5.
(Exparte)
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya.A., Member
1. Complainant is a lorry agent who arranges the load of vehicles carrying vegetables from Tamil Nadu and he used to get Rs.1000/- to 1500/- daily as commission for this service. For the purpose of his job, he bought a mobile HERO(600+) on 30/03/2021 from the 2nd opposite party shop for an amount of Rs.800/- and they sealed 6 months guarantee for the phone in the ‘mobile box’.
The battery of the phone was not getting charged while kept it for charging on 30/06/2021 and the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for repair. They informed him that they cannot repair the phone in their shop and asked him to go to the nearby service centre ‘DMC Mobile shop’. DMC mobile shop informed him that the board of the phone is defective and they cannot repair it under warranty and he has to pay for its repair. But they did not repair and returned it after 2 days asking him to approach the dealer. The 2nd opposite party did not do anything and returned the phone after keeping it for 2 days. Because of their acts the complainant could not canvass the people for loading purpose and he lost around Rs.55,000/- on account of that.
So this complaint is filed for directing the opposite parties to give the cost of the mobile, travelling expenses and Rs.55000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial crisis suffered by him.
2. Complaint was admitted and notice issued to both opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party was present on the first day of hearing. But after that there was no representation from their part and they did not file their version. So they were set exparte. Intimation received from the the postal department that notice was served on 1st opposite party on 26/08/2021. As there was no representation from the 1st opposite party even after the receipt of notice, they were set exparte.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit in evidence. Ext A1 & A2 were marked and evidence closed. Heard the complainant.
4. Main points to be considered.
1. Whether there is Defieciency in service on the part of the opposite
parties ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?
3. Reliefs and costs if any.
Points 1, 2 & 3
5. We have perused the affidavit and documents produced by the complainant. Ext A1 is the cash bill issued by 2nd opposite party showing the purchase of Hero 600+ mobile on 30/03/2021 for Rs.750/-. As per the complainant’s contention the battery of the phone was not getting charged while trying to recharge it on 30/06/2021. So he approached the 2nd opposite party for repairing it as it was within warranty period of 6 months offered by them.
The 2nd opposite party told him that they cannot repair the phone and suggested him to go to another mobile repair shop namely ‘DMC Mobile shop’.
6. The complainant did not produce the warranty card, but stated in his affidavit that 6 months warranty was sealed by the 2nd opposite party in the ‘Mobile box’ given by them.
Ext A2 is the ‘Job card’ dated 30/06/2021 issued by ‘DM communications, Authorised service centre’ in which the complaint is noted as “Battery charge; dead; data loss” From Ext A2,it is clear that the grievance of the complainant that the phone is not getting charged is correct. This shows that the phone which is purchased on 30/03/2021 became defective within 3 months of its purchase.
7. The 2nd opposite party being the dealer is responsible for repairing it or they have to contact the manufacturer to get it repaired or replaced. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is not repairing/ replacing the defective phone. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for that.
8. As per the complaint, the complainant who is working as lorry agent and meeting his livelihood from the commission he obtains from canvassing people for loading purposes could not communicate with the people because of the defective phone. This caused financial loss to the tune of Rs.55,000/- to him.
9. Even though he has not produced any evidence to show the exact amount of loss suffered by him, the non functioning of the mobile phone which is an indispensible part of his job would have caused loss of job leading to financial loss and mental strain . All these happened because of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and they are liable to compensate the complainant for that.
10. Since the opposite parties remained exparte, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.
In the result, the complaint is allowed.
The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly are severally liable to refund (1) Rs.750/- the cost of the phone, with interest @ 6% from 30/06/2021 till realization, Rs.5000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and Rs.5000/- as the compensation for the financial crisis, mental agony and other expenses incurred by the complainant.
Order shall be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 09th day of May 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Invoice bill No.1264 Dated 30/03/2021.
Ext.A2 - Job card issued by DM Communication dated 30/06/2021.
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
NIL
Cost: Nil
