SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

     This is a  complaint filed by the complainant  U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the opposite parties to pay the value of  the phone Rs.11958/-  along with compensation and cost of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for the  deficiency of service on their part.

  The case of the complainant in brief :

  The complainant had purchased a Redmi Note 4 mobile phone for his personal purpose on 30/9/2020 for an amount of Rs.11958/-.  The Ops showed the advertisement and  1^st OP assured that the Redmi note 4 mobile phone  contain good quality.  Only believing the words of Ops the complainant’s son Subin Revi ordered the phone for the use of the complainant.  At the time of purchasing the mobile phone 2^nd OP assured one year warranty and 6 years paid service also.  But unfortunately on July 2021 itself the phone become defective and not working properly.  Immediately the complainant informed the matter to Ops but no steps to cure the defects taken by Ops.  Then the complainant informed the matter to 1^st OP’s customer care and registered the grievance No.2936005 dtd.1/8/2021.  The complaints noted  that the board needs to be replaced within 2  weeks.  After 2 weeks the complainant again approached and the OP states that the product has reached the end of  its lifecycle and they can’t repair it.  Since the product is under warranty period they should be replacing it with a similar product.  The complainant purchased the mobile phone for his personal and family purpose.  But the Ops are not ready to replace a new mobile phone.  The act of the Ops the complainant caused much ,mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the complaint.

           After filing the complaint, notice  issued to both  opposite parties.  The opposite parties received the notice and not appeared before the commission and not filed any version. The commission had to hold that the  OPs have no version as such  this case came to be proceed   against the   opposite parties are set  exparte.

    Even though the opposite parties have remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by him against the opposite parties.  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 5 documents as marked as  Exts.A1 to A5 series along with the alleged mobile phone and marked as MO1.     The complainant was examined as PW1.   So the opposite parties remain absent in this case.  At the end the Commission heard the case on merit.

    Let us have a clear glance at the relevant documents  of the  complainant. On 30/9/2020 the complainant’s son purchased a Redmi Note 4 mobile phone for the personal use of complainant for an amount of Rs.11958/-as shown in the tax invoice marked as  Ext.A1.  At the time of purchasing the mobile phone 2^nd OP assured one year warranty and 6 years paid service as shown in Ext.A2 also.  In July 2021 the phone become defective and not working and the complainant informed the matter to Ops and shown in Ext.A3.  Opposite parties are not  ready to repair the mobile phone within the  warranty period.  In Ext.A4 and A5 series clearly  shows that the Ops contacted the complainant’s son to communicate the matter in several times.  But the Ops not ready to replace the mobile phone or  refund the value of mobile phone Rs.11,958/- to the complainant.  Moreover the complainant produce the MO1 mobile phone before the commission.  The opposite parties are directly bound to redress the grievance caused to the complainant. Therefore we hold that the opposite parties  1&2 are jointly and severally liable to pay  the value of  mobile phone Rs.11,958/- along with compensation of Rs.3000/- and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1&2jointly and severally liable to pay  the value of  mobile phone Rs.11,958/- to the complainant along with Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost within  30 days  of  receipt  of the order,   failing which the   complainant shall be  at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019. After the said proceedings opposite parties 1&2 are at liberty to take back the MO1 before the commission.

Exts:

A1- Tax invoice

A2-warranty slip

A3-Service record(copy)

A4-complaint(computer printout)

A5series-whatsapp chats.

PW1-Revi.C-complainant

Sd/                                                                Sd/                                                                              Sd/

PRESIDENT                                  MEMBER                                           MEMBER

Ravi Susha                             Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

eva                                                                     /forwarded by Order/

SENIOR SUPERINTENENT