D.O.F:21/07/2023 D.O.O:23/01/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.217/2023
Dated this, the 23rd day of January 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA. K.G :MEMBER
Shivaraman aged 42 years,
S/o Gopala,
Edurthodu House,
Edneer Village, P.O Edneer -671548 : Complainant
Kasaragod Taluk.
And
The Proprietor Mobile Dot,
Sales & Service, Al Rahaba Centre,
Near Hotel National Palace, : Opposite Party
Maidan Road Mangaluru, 575001.
ORDER
SMT. BEENA. K.G :MEMBER
The facts of the case is that the complainant is a self employ, who is working as a technician and doing repair works of electronics items, having his service centre at Kasaragod town. The respondent is the proprietor mobile dot, sales and service. Since the complainant is a technician, he required suitable mobile to suit his convenience, he contacted opposite party at Mangalore. Though Opposite party offered to give proper service in future believing his assurance the complainant purchased a mobile on 21/11/2021 by paying Rs. 8200/- of POCO 31 with blue colour bearing IMEI No: 862990059436179 and IMEI No: 2862990009436187. The opposite party had issued cash memo at that time. Even from the beginning itself there were defects in the mobile phone. There were problems regarding battery and display. The battery was bulged hence the complainant submitted the mobile phone along with original cash memo for service as per direction of opposite party. The Opposite party has returned the same by telling that everything is ok. But asked the complainant keep the original cash memo with them. Believing their version complainant did not obtained the cash memo from Opposite party. Despite the assurance of Opposite party the very same defects continued and on several occasions the complainant approached Opposite party with his mobile and Opposite party had promised to set right the things. Since the Opposite party had retained the original cash memo when he approached them with the complaint of the mobile the complainant could not handed over the same to any other service centers. Since he was not in custody of original invoice he could not get the mobile service done through other centers during warranty period. The Opposite party has prolonged the same up to the expiry of warranty period. And due to the aforesaid defects the complainant is not in a position to use his mobile and discharge his duty as a technician. Due to the defects in the mobile the complainant has to face unpleasant situation Infront of his customers. Thus due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite parties the complainant had undergone severe damages. Hence the Opposite party is bound to compensate the damages by paying Rs. 50,000/- besides returning the price of the mobile with interest @ 18% from 21/11/2021 till payment. The complainant was caused to issue a notice dated 10/02/2023 to the Opposite party and instead of complying the lawful demands of the complainant the Opposite party has kept silent. The complainant is constrained to change the battery by spending amount from his pocket. The complainant is seeking a direction against Opposite party to pay a sum of Rs 50,000/- as compensation for the complainant along with refund of the price of the mobile Rs. 8200/- with interest at 12% per annum from 21/11/2021.
The notice of Opposite party served, but they remained absent. Name called absent set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination the documents produced are marked as Ext A1 and A2. Heard the complainant.
The issues raised for consideration are :
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite party for non repair of the mobile phone during warranty period.
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so what is the relief?
For convenience all points can be discussed together.
The grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased a mobile POCO C 31 blue by paying Rs. 8200/- on 21/11/2021 from opposite party. From the beginning itself there were defects in the phone, problems regarding battery and display hence the complainant submitted the mobile along with original cash memo to the Opposite party in the month of December 2021. As per the direction of Opposite party the complainant handed over the original cash memo to Opposite party. The Opposite party had returned the mobile only after the expiry of warranty period by telling that all defects cured. when the complainant asked for the original receipts the Opposite party told them to keep the receipt with them only inspite of the assurance of Opposite party the very same defects continued and on several occasions the complainant approached Opposite party with his mobile but the Opposite party send him back promised to set right the things. Since the Opposite party had retained the original cash memo the complaint could not entrust the mobile phone to any other service centre. The allegation of the complainant is the Opposite party intentionally prolonged the repair work till the period of expiry of warranty period. Due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of Opposite party the complainant is not in a position to use his mobile. Due to the defects of the mobile phone the complainant has to face unpleasant situation infront of his customers.
We carefully gone through the affidavit and documents produced by the complainant. Ext A1 is the cash memo issued by opposite party and A2 is the lawyer notice. Retaining the cash memo by opposite party is a clear evidence for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The complainant approached opposite party several times with complaint of the mobile phone. But opposite party failed to cure the same. Retaining the cash memo illegally by opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant is not availed proper after sales service from Opposite party. Which is a legal right of the consumer. As the complainant is a self employ, repairer of electronic items, mobile phone is highly essential for him. Due to the defects of the mobile phone the complainant suffered loss and mental agony. There is nothing to disbelieve the affidavit of the complainant. It is clear that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite party. Which caused severe loss and damage to the complainant.
The prayer of the complainant is to give direction to opposite party to refund the price of the mobile phone Rs 8200/- with interest at 12% from 21/11/2021 till payment with a compensation of Rs 50,000/- and cost.
This commission is of the view that refund of the price of the mobile phone with interest and compensation is the liability of Opposite party in this case. But the compensation sought by the complainant in this case is highly excessive and without any basis. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- is a reasonable compensation considering the facts of this case.
In the result complaint is allowed directing Opposite party to refund Rs. 8200/- with interest @ 9% from 21/11/2021 till payment with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) along with a cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Cash Memo
A2- Lawyers notice
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
