By. Smt. Beena. M, Member:-
Brief facts of the case are given below:-
Attracted by the advertisement of Opposite Party No.1 published through printed and visual media, the Complainant had purchased a REALME Buds Wireless Pro RMA 208 Yellow on 07/02/2022 for Rs.4,000/- with warranty for the manufacturing defect, from Opposite Party No.1, which was manufactured by Opposite Party No.2. It is averred that, on the same day of purchase, the ear buds had lost its noise reduction button and also an unusual sound coming from the ear buds and the charge of the ear buds became stopped within 8-9 hours after it was fully charged. At the time of purchase, the Opposite Party No 1 assured that the ear buds would give 22 hours working on a full single charge but the same is giving only 8-9 hours charge. It has been stated that it is manufacturing defect hence, the Complainant entrusted the ear buds to the Opposite Party No.1 on 08-01-2022. The Opposite Party No.1 assured that the matter would be intimated to the Opposite Party No.2 and would replace with new one. After that, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party on several times and at last on 02-04-2022, the Opposite Party No.1 returned the ear buds stating that they cannot replace it. The Opposite Parties are liable to replace the ear buds as the same is within warranty period. The above said act of the Opposite Parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the Complainant due to which the Complainant has to suffer a lot of inconvenience. Hence this Complaint.
2. Upon notice, the Opposite Parties appeared and contested the complaint filing version. The Second Opposite Party contented that there is no expert opinion on the record to show that there is manufacturing defect in the earbuds. According to the Opposite Party, they contacted the Complainant after receiving complaint and they offered him replacement of the product on 14/05/2022, but the Complainant was not amenable to the replacement of the product, he demanded Rs.2,500/-as litigation expenses. It clearly establishes malafide intention on the part of the Complainant to extort money from Opposite Party unlawfully and illegally. The Opposite Party submitted that they are ready to replace the product free of cost till this date. Thus, there is no deficiency from their part. The service center, on checking the product found that button was missing due to physical damage and the same is not covered under warranty.
3. In order to prove the Complainant’s case, the Complainant had adduced oral evidence and he was examined as PW1 and document produced was marked as Ext.A1 and the device was marked as MO1. The Second Opposite Party filed proof affidavit and no documents were marked on their behalf.
4. On perusal of Complaint and documents, the Commission raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice/deficiency in service from the part of Opposite Party?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relieves as
prayed for?
5. Point No. 1 and 2:- The purchase of ear buds on 07/01/2022 for Rs. 4000/- by the Complainant from the First Opposite Party was admitted. It is noted that Opposite Party No.2 in the reply have not denied that complaint was made by the Complainant regarding the defect and they had found the ear buds to be defective when it was inspected on 08/01/2022. But it is the plea of the Opposite Party No.2 that the defect in the ear buds occurred due to negligence of the Complainant as it was a case of physical damage, which is not covered under the warranty policy. Here, there is nothing on record to substantiate the plea of the Opposite Party that the defect in ear buds was customer induced damage except bare assertion in their version. The Opposite Party No.2 have not placed on record any report to that effect that the defect in the ear buds which was noticed by him was customer induced damage and same occurred due to negligent handling by the complainant. In such circumstances, the bare assertion in version that defect occurred due to negligent handling of the ear buds by the Complainant, which is not covered under the policy, cannot be accepted. It is the Version of Opposite Party No.2 that it was ready to replace the ear buds in question with a new one, which itself is an implied admission by Opposite Party No.2, the ear buds in question being defective and it is for this reason only that the Opposite Party No. 2 was ready to replace the same with a new one. The Opposite Party provided defective product to Complainant which is unfair trade practice. Under this circumstance, the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought for. In the result, we record our findings on point No.1 as affirmative and Point No.2 partly affirmative. In this case, the Commission considers that the Opposite Parties are liable to refund the price of the earbuds to the Complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, and
A) The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) the price of ear buds to the Complainant.
B) The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost of the proceedings to the Complainant.
The Opposite Parties are entitled to get back the MO1 from this Commission after compliance of this order, on submitting joint application. This order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 12th day of July 2023.
Date of filing:07.04.2022.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Suresh. O. Government Employee.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Tax Invoice/Cash Bill. Dt:07.01.2022.
MO1. Realme Buds Wireless Pro.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/-
