SRI. SAJEESH.K.P    : MEMBER

   The complainant has  filed this complaint  under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking direction against  the OPs to give new mobile phone and also pay Rs.20,000/-  as compensation to the complainant  for the deficiency of service on their part.

Complaint in brief :-

   On  26/9/2019, complainant purchased a mobile set Oppo from  3G mobile   and he entrusted his  mobile at OP’s service centre at Kannur.  On 14/11/2022 the mobile set was returned with a bill of Rs.976/-.  The complainant tried to on his mobile but OP’s told to charge it  for 3 ½ hours the complainant failed to open his mobile.  This was intimated to  1^st OP and as per their direction complainant approached  2^nd OP to repair his phone and after some  day they demand Rs.4700/- from complainant to rectify the defect.  The complainant constrained to file this complaint as his mobile was not repaired or returned.

         After filing the complaint, notice was issued to both OPs .  1^st OP  notice was returned as “addressee left” it is presumed that notice was served.  Hence  1^st OP is set exparte.  2^nd  OP received  the notice and not  appeared before the commission and not filed any version.  Hence the commission   held that  the OPs have no version  as such in this case  came to be  proceed against the OPs are set exparte.

         Even though, the opposite parties have  remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegation made by him against the  OPs.  Hence the  complainant was  called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents.  Accordingly the  complainant  has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 3 documents  marked as Exts.A1 to A3.  Ext.A1 is the Retail invoice issued by 3G Mobile world, Ext.A2 is the tax invoice issued by 1^st OP and Ext.A3 is the  copy of  job card issued by 2^nd OP. The complainant was examined as PW1.  So the OPs are remain absent in this case.  At the end the commission heard the case on merit.

           On the perusal of documents produced by complainant before the commission, Ext.A1 which is the retail invoice issued by dealer  who is  not a party in this case indicates the purchase  and price of mobile.  There is no dispute raised  by the  complainant  with regard to the purchase of mobile.  But , Ext.A1 become relevant as it shows the purchase date , ie 26/9/2019.  The  complainant had not produced any exhibits  shows the warranty details.  Hence the replacement of mobile  as prayed by complainant will not lie.  According to Ext.A2, the tax invoice issued by OP dtd.4/11/2022, purchase of battery worth Rs.976/- is seen that  means the battery purchased after 3 years from the date of Ext.A1.  The Ext.A3 dtd. 25/11/2022 reveals the remark regarding the mobile as “Auto on off”.  Hence on the perusal of Ext.A2 the clause No.1 of terms and conditions specifically providing 90 days of warranty period from  the date of invoice pertaining to replaced spare parts.  As mentioned  earlier  in Ext.A3,  the job card issued after 21 days of purchase of battery specified in Ext.A2 detected problem of Auto on off.  So the commission is in the view that there is  deficiency in service from the  part of OPs as the defect of battery within the period of warranty  and it was not deliberately rectified which is  a serious  fall in providing service .    Moreover, according to the complainant, the phone is still in the custody of OPs.  Hence the commission came into a conclusion that  there is deficiency in service from the part of OPs.   Since the defect arise within the period of warranty as per the  dates mentioned in Exts.A2&A3.  So the OPs are directly bound to redress the grievance caused to the complainant.   Therefore, we  hold that the OPs are jointly and severally liable to  pay the value of battery  Rs.976/- along with  compensation of Rs.2000/- to the complainant.

       In the result complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to  pay the value of battery  Rs.976/- along with  compensation of Rs.2000/- to the complainant and also directed to 2^nd opposite party to return  the mobile phone entrusted by complainant. If the mobile phone is not returned by 2^nd opposite party  then they  are liable to pay the amount of mobile phone Rs.7200/- to the complainant   within 30 days of receipt of this order.  Failing which complainant is at liberty to file execution application against opposite parties as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1-  Retail invoice

A2- Tax invoice

A3-Job card

PW1-Baby.K-Complainant

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                 Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR