Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/89/2020

Commander S.P.IIangovan(Rtd),Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor,RM Electronics,39/10,Wallers Road - Opp.Party(s)

K.Balaji and Prabula Chandra

11 Jan 2023

ORDER

                                   Date of Complaint Filed : 29.10.2020

                                   Date of Reservation      : 30.12.2022

                                   Date of Order               : 11.01.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                 :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,          : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.89 /2020

WEDNESDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF JANUARY 2023

Commander SP Illangovan (Rtd),

Advocate MHCLSC,

HIG 21 B South Avenue,

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai 600041.                                                                                                                     ... Complainant              

..Vs..

The Proprietor,

RM Electronics,

39/10, Wallers Road,

Mount Road,

Chennai – 600 002.                                                                                                            ...  Opposite Party

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. K. Balaji

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : Exparte

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-II, Thiru. S. Nandagopalan., B.Sc., MBA.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to repay the sum of Rs.600/- being the cost of the spurious Samsung battery sold by him to Complainant along with Rs.100/- for travel expenses towards the cost of legal notice and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as extra ordinary damages & compensation to be paid by the Opposite Party to the Complainant for causing mental agony, pain & sufferings and humiliations caused to the Complainant through unfair trade practices.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant states that on 24-02-2020 sent his representative to the Opposite Party with the original Cell Phone Battery i.e INTEX Rechargeable Li-ion Battery 3.7 V 2300 mAh/8.51 Wh, Model No 1-S4 1 ICP6/57/60, with specific request for replacement of genuine original battery. Instead of providing the specific replacement of the original Cell Phone Battery the Opposite Party sold a SAMSUNG Battery, vide Bill No 230 dated 24-02-2020 claiming it to be its equivalent for the sale price of Rs. 600/ with the promise to take back the battery & return the money on 26-02-2020, if it is not found suitable. The bill did not reflect any GST collected for the sale. On inspection of the SAMSUNG battery sold by the Opposite Party, it was found not suitable to technical specification of the original battery and also had dimensional variation and when fitted to the Cell Phone with difficulty the rear cover could not be fixed. When the battery was charged without a rear cover it was found to lose charge even when the phone was not switched on and the power dropped rapidly when put to use. It was also noticed that the battery was made in China without a date of manufacture and quality assurance seal & warranty. Thus it was clear that the battery sold by the Opposite Party, vide Bill No 230 dated 24-02-2020 without GST, was a spurious product from China. When the battery was returned to the Opposite Party on 24-02-2020 duly explaining the defects and money sought back, the Opposite Party refused to return the money and said he would only replace it with another battery. When the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to return the money since he had no faith in the spurious products marketed by the Opposite Party, and also it involves additional expenses towards travel & loss of time, the Opposite Party was defiant, disrespectful and refused to return the money and stated that he is ready to face any legal consequences. Therefore the Complainant sent a legal notice dated 28-02-2020 by RPAD, seeking the return of Rs 600/- being the cost of the battery, Rs.100/- towards travel expenses & Rs.3000/ towards the cost of legal notice. But the legal notice was refused & returned back as unclaimed. Hence the Complaint. Hence the complaint.

3. The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as  Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3. Despite sufficient notice served on the Opposite party, they failed to appear before this commission and they have been called absent and set Ex-parte.

Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:

On careful perusal of the Complainant's averments and the respective documents it is admissible that the Complainant purchased the cell phone battery from the Opposite Party. The Complainant contended that as per the requirement, the Opposite Party failed to provide the specific replacement of the cell phone battery i.e INTEX Rechargeable Li-ion Battery 3.7 V 2300 mAh/8.51 Wh, Model No 1-S4 1 ICP6/57/60 instead Opposite Party sold a Samsung battery claiming it is equivalent as seen in Ex.A-1 for Rs.600/- dated 24.02.2020 vide bill No.230. It is pertinent to note that the Complainant failed to provide the relevant proof or images of the battery to substantiate the allegations made on the Opposite Party. Furthermore, Complainant averred that the Opposite Party promised to take back the battery and return the money on 26.02.2020 if it is not found suitable in contrary the Opposite Party refused to return the money and could replace it with another battery and also submitted that the battery sold by the Opposite Party deems unfit technically and also dimensional wise when tried to fit it in the Cell Phone of the Complainant due to which there is a difficulty in fixing the rear cover alongside the battery was not able to charge besides the power dropped rapidly even when the mobile is not switched on. It is noticeable that the Complainant averments are not backed up with appropriate materialistic evidence to validate the affirmation kept on the Opposite Party’s unfair trade practice. It is the Complainant’s liability to produce the authenticated evidence to prove the Opposite party unfair trade practice. Hence on careful observation by scrutinising the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the considered view that the Complainant failed to affirm or corroborate the allegations made on the Opposite Parties with the relevant proofs to demonstrate the claims of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service as against the Opposite Party. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.  

Point Nos.2 and 3:

As discussed and decided Point No.3 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and for any other relief/s. Accordingly, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 11^th of January 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	24.02.2020	Bill No.230 given by Opposite Party for the sale of battery
Ex.A2	28.02.2020	Legal Notice sent by the Complainant to Opposite Party
Ex.A3	08.03.2020	The unclaimed legal notice returned by Post Office

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

NIL

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT