COMPLAINT FILED ON 30/07/2021

                                                                         DISPOSED ON 02/01/2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:46/2021

DATED: 02^nd January 2023

PRESENT: - Kum. H.N. MEENA, B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT

                    Smt. B.H. YASHODA, B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER

:ORDER:

Smt. B.H. YASHODA, B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER.

The complaint filed by complainant U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant prays before this Hon’ble Commission to pass orders against opponents to replace the defective hand set with the same model of new one or to make payment of Rs.57,150/- with interest from the date of purchase till the date of payment and such grant other reliefs as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit by allowing this complaint.

2. The brief facts of the complaint:

It is submitted that, the complainant had purchased one new Redmi 9 power mobile hand set on 24/1/2021 by paying
Rs. 12,150/- the EMI No.864455057420110 from the opponent No.4.

3. It is alleged that, the opponent No. 1 and 2 are the manufacturer of the said hand set, the opponent No.3 is service center of the said hand set, and the opponent No.4 is seller of the said hand set in Chitradurga city, soon after the purchasing of the said item the complainant started to utilize the same. After 20 days from the date of purchase the problems persist in the said hand set, i.e., the auto call recording not operating, the contact message are not sending when complainant sent the message contacts numbers, the said hand set overheating when using the internet, camera not working properly, the said hand set is over heat when using the same and while hand set found defect in recharging battery also. The said battery was properly not taking back up of empty battery.  The complainant has informed above defects to opponent No.4 but, the opponent No.4 informed that, the problems are rectified in opponent No.3 office, since the opponent No.3 is the authorized service center of the said hand set, thereafter the complainant approached the Opponent No.3, the opponent No.3 is received the said mobile and stated that we are not responsible under warranty and not rectify the problems in free service persist in the hand set. Further the stated “the said application is not updated by the manufacturer of the said hand set and the complainant will install the third party application for auto call recording”. When complainant has installed said application for call recording, but the same was not working properly. Further the opponent No.3 has stated that, we will not responsible for defective goods and the said mistake by manufacturer of the said company and head office of the said mobile company is in Tamilnadu, hence we are not responsible the defective hand set. The opponent No.3 has not rectify the problems persist in the hand set and not sent the said set to the manufacturer of the said company. Hence the complainant is unable to tolerate the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service of the opponent No.1 to 4, Hence, the complainant has issued legal notice to OP No.1 to 4, notice duly served to OP No.1 to 4 and the OP No.1 refused the notice issued by the  complainant and after receiving the notice the OP No.4 issued a reply notice to the complainant counsel with false contents like the opponent No.4 is only seller of the said hand set, on these grounds the complainant have prayed for allowing the complaint. 

4. After registered the complaint, notice issued by this Hon’ble Commission was served to the opponents on 21/08/2021.  But OP No.1, 3 & 4, have not appeared before this commission and hence they placed ex-parte on 07/09/2021. OP No.2 notice served, appeared filed memo of appearance on 07/09/2021 and filed the Vakalath on 07/01/2022. But OP No.2 version not filed within stipulated period. Hence the Hon’ble commission was taken not filed version of OP No.2 on 03/02/2022.  

5. The complainant has examined as P.W.1 by through filling, Affidavit along with produced 5 documents were got marked Ex.A.1 to A.5 and closed his side.  

6. The OP No.1, 3 & 4 are not appeared before this commission and not filed any version and there is no lead the evidence and written Arguments, after that the OP No.2 filed Vakalath through their Counsel, but not filed any version and no lead the evidence and written arguments. Complainant Arguments heard.  

7. Now, the points that arise for our consideration for                   decision of above complaint are that:

1. Whether the complainant proves that he is the consumer?
2. Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency in service and not rectify / replace the above defective hand set new one and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?
3. What order?

8. Our finding on the above points are as follows:

1. Point No.1 & 2 : Affirmative
2. Point No.3 : As per final order

REASONS         

9. Point No.1: That the complainant examined as PW-1 along with produced 5 documents was marked as Ex.A.1- Tax Invoice issued by Poorvika Mobiles Private Limited, Chitradurga, Ex.A.2- Issue Legal Notice to OP No.1 to 4 from complainant advocate on 03.03.2021, Ex.A.3- Postal receipts, Ex.A.4- Return notice issued to OP No.1, Ex.A.5- Reply Notice from OP No.4. As per Ex.A.1 and 5 there is no dispute the complainant as a consumer as such the Point No.1 is affirmative.

        10. Point No.2: The Hon’ble Commission observed that the evidence of complainant. The complainant has purchased mobile hand set from OP No.4, which is manufactured by OP No.1 and 2 after received amount Rs.12,150/- the OP No.4 have issued invoice  i.e., Ex.A-1, after received the mobile hand set the complainant while started using the mobile, after 20 days from the date of purchase the problems persist in the said hand set i.e., the auto call recording not  operating,  contact message are not sending when complainant send the message contacts numbers the said hand set overheating when using the interest the camera not working properly the battery also properly not taking backup of empty battery then the complainant inform to OP No.4 for problem of handset, but the OP No.4 informed that, the problems are rectified in OP No.3 there after the complainant approached the OP No.3, the OP No.3 was received mobile and stated that we are not responsible under warranty and not rectify the problems and also not sent the mobile to the manufacturer of the company.

11. That the complainant called the OP No.3 and 4 for many time, but they are avoiding complainant by one or other pretext, so for the opponents have not served to rectify the defective mobile and also not deputed any of the technician of mobile company like wise the opponents have committed an unfair trade practice and also made deficiency in service., then the complainant issue a legal notice to OP’s through his counsel by R.P.A.D. the OP No.4 was received and issued reply notice to complainant but OP No.1,  refused the notice issued by the complainant.

12. The Hon’ble Commission perused the evidence of the complainant and documents. After issue notice from this commission notice was duly served to OPs but OP No.1, 3, 4 not appeared this commission. Hence OP No.1, 3 and 4 placed ex-parte on 07/09/2021 and OP No.2 appear through counsel and filed Vakalath and take sufficient time for filed version, but not filed any version and not any lead the evidence with regard to their no defective mobile set are not deficiency in service. In Ex.A-1 invoice clearly stated that the mobile 1 year and accessories 6 months warranty for any service problems Authorized Service Center responsibility, the complainant informed the problems of mobile to OPs, But the OPs have not solve the problems, it is shows that prima facie that the OPs are unfair trade practice and deficiency in service of defective mobile. As such the Point No.2 taken in to consideration as affirmative.

13. Point No.3: As discussed on the above points and for the reasons stated there in we pass the following.

::ORDER::

        The present complaint filed by the complainant U/s.35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that the OP’s are directed to replace the above defective hand set with the same of new one.

It is ordered that the OP’s are directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards mental shock and mental agony of the complainant.

It is further ordered that, the OP’s to pay of Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of proceedings.

It is further ordered that, the OP’s are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

        Communicate the order to parties.

(Typed directly on the computer to the dictation given to stenographer, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by us on 02^nd January 2023.)

       LADY MEMBER                                               PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:- Sri Basavaraj S/O Manjunatha by way of affidavit    

           of evidence.  

Witness examined behalf of opponents:

Nil.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Documents marked on behalf of opponents:

Nil

       LADY MEMBER                                               PRESIDENT

*GM