DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 25th day of May, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing 17/09/2021
CC/151/2021
C. C. Suhas
Chungathodi House
Konnanchery, Ayakkad (P.O)
Vadakkencherry, Palakkad – 678 683 - Complainant
(By Adv. M. J. Vince)
V/s
The Proprietor /Manager
Venu's Digital Arcade
NH .Thangam Junction,
Vadakkencherry,
Palakkad -678683 - Opposite party
(By Adv. V. Jishakumary)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member.
1. Pleadings of the Complainant.
The complainant purchased a Samsung make dual sim mobile phone from the opposite party on 13/04/2021 for Rs. 22,500/- The grievance of the complainant is that he is not getting internet facility while the phone is having sims in both the slots. The facility is available with only one sim in the phone. Similarly the facility is available when his mobile sims are put in other Dual sim phones. Hence, according to him, the problem is due to the defect of the phone and hence approached an NGO called "Forum for Consumer Justice" Alathur. They sent a letter to the opposite party requesting them to redress the grievance. In the reply, the opposite party contented that they are only the dealers and the manufacturer is only responsible for any manufacturing defect and/or after sales service and warranty.
Aggrieved by this, complaint is filed before this Commission seeking rectification of the defect /exchange of phone /refund of the cost along with Rs. 23,000/- as cost & compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance and filed version. Their contention is that they are only dealers and manufacturing company is responsible for any manufacturing defects and for after sales service as per warranty terms. Hence, when the complainant approached them with the problem, they directed him to approach the authorized service center of the Manufacturing Company. So the complaint is bad for non joinder of the manufacturer as well as their Service Centre as necessary parties. Further non availability of internet facility can also be due to the failure of the internet service provider for which they are not responsible.
3. Based on the pleadings of the complainant and opposite party, the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
- Whether the complainant has succeeded in proving that his mobile phone is suffering from defects when used with 2 sims?
- Whether the internet service failure comes under the service to be rendered by the opposite party?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
- Reliefs if any?
4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. A1 to A4 as evidence. Opposite party didn't file proof affidavit. The complainant was cross examined as PW1.
5. Issue1
Though the product is sold by the dealer, the primary responsibility to attend the defects of the phone lies with the manufacturer and hence this complaint is bad for non joinder of them as well as their authorized service centre as opposite parties. It is pertinent to note here that the opposite party had clearly mentioned this in their version duly providing the address of these parties.
6. Issue 2
During the cross examination of the complainant, he deposed that the phone was giving net facility while working with one sim and both his sims were working together when put in other dual sim phones. However, this matter has not been examined or certified by appointing an expert. Hence the decision shall go against the complainant.
7. Issue 3
As per the deposition, the complainant has confirmed that the sims when put in other dual sim phones were providing net facility. Hence this can be attributed only to the defect of the phone, not to the failure of the internet provider, though it has not been certified by any expert. If at all the phone is having defect, the manufacturing company, not opposite party should be held responsible for this.
8. Issue 4, 5 & 6
From the above narrations, it can be seen that the complainant failed on many fronts, viz. not impleading the necessary parties in the complaint, not getting an expert appointed to certify the defect etc. in conducting the case. Further, the evidences adduced are of no value in proving the deficiency on the part of the opposite party. At time of purchasing the phone, the dealer would have supplied a warranty card issued on behalf of the manufacturer which would clearly show the warranty terms & conditions. The complainant being an educated person should have definitely known that the authorised service centre is to be contacted for any complaint regarding the product.
Hence, the deficiency on the part of the opposite party has not been proved.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed and the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
Pronounced in open court on this the 25th day of May, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
Appendix
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext. A1: Tax invoice issued by the opposite party for the mobile phone dated
13/04/2021.
Ext. A2: Copy of letter issued to the opposite party by the "Forum for Consumer
Justice" dated 12/08/2021.
Ext. A3: Reply from OP for the above letter dated 28/08/2021.
Ext. A4: Letter addressed by "Forum for Consumer Justice" to the opposite
party dated 30/08/2021.
Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil
Witness examined: Nil
Cost: Nil
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
