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 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.38498/- and the interest thereon to the complainant.
The complainant in brief :-
On 15/7/2020, the complainant had purchased a smart phone manufactured by 1st OP from 3rd OP worth Rs. 18498/-. However within one week of purchase, the sensor , battery as well as the software of the said phone became complaint. The complainant approached 2nd OP, the service provider of 1st OP to get the mobile repaired and 2nd OP repaired and returned after one month. Thereafter again the phone have started issues within a week and 2nd OP repaired the motherboard and returned to complainant. After some days the phone stopped working completely and complainant demanded the replacement of his mobile with a new one and 2nd OP provided the same. Surprisingly the new phone also started to show the same problem as his old phone had. Then the complainant approached 2nd OP to get it replaced and again a new phone was given to complainant put the history repeated here also, the 3rd phone also started to show the defects as that of his earlier two phones had. Due to the defect of his phone the complainant , being an autorikshaw driver he suffered hardship, loss of income and mental agony . Hence this compliant.
After filing the complaint, notice was issued to all OPs. The OPs are received the notice and not appeared before the commission and not filed any version. The commission had to held that the OPs have no version as such this case came to be proceed against the OPs as set exparte. Thereafter 3rd OP filed vakalath and petition to set aside the exparte order, commission allowed the petition, but 3rd OP failed to file the version within the time and the commission set 3rd OP is 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 5 documents as marked as Ext.A1 to A5 along with alleged mobile phone and marked as MO1 . The complainant was examined as PW1. At the end the commission heard the case on merit
Let us have a clear glance to the documents one by one which was produced by complainant before this commission. As per Ext.A1, the model and purchase price of mobile and the sellers details are undoubtedly proved. According to the complaint, complainant raised an allegation that the phone is purchased from 3rd OP which was manufactured by 1st OP have issues within one week of purchase. With regard to the vital parts like sensor, battery etc and the service was provided by 2nd OP being the service provider of 1st OP and returned the mobile after one month. Let us peruse Ext.A2 to consider the above aspect. As per Ext.A2 issued by 2nd OP dtd.10/11/2020, it is seen that the fault description is stated as “auto power off”, the service record the create date and delivery date is shown as 10/11/2020. The mobile was purchased the complainant on 15/7/2020. Even though the relevancy of date is not as much important than the real issue of “Auto power off” faced by complainant even after paying a huge amount to purchase it. It is quite surprising that as per the complaint OPs alleged that after the repair, the phone again started to malfunction. On the perusal of Ext.A3 dtd 15/12/2020 issued by 2nd OP, the fault is stated as “receiver no sound in calling state”. In both exhibits the IMEI Number stated as 867799043689313,867799043769537 shows that first two services one provided to two different mobiles and also the faults were occurred during the warranty period. The statement with regard to the replacement new phone instead of old one is evident and IMEI Nos. shown in Ext.A2 and Ext.A3.
In the complaint, complainant stated that he demanded for a replacement of another new phone and this was done by 2nd OP. This statement is clearly proved on perusing Ext.A4. Moreover, the mishap is Ext.A4 is a service record issued by 2nd OP dtd.29/12/2020 to complainant when the newly given phone with IMEI No.865528050262694, submitted for repair and the fault is described as “Receiver no sound in calling state”. As per the Ext.A5 dtd.9/7/2021, the fault described by 2nd OP to the mobile phone bearing IMEI No.865528050262694 as “Receiver no sound in calling state”. Moreover complainant produced MO1 mobile phone before the commission. From these all exhibits it is clear that complainant had suffered hardships due to the mishap caused towards the defect either manufacture or service faults. From all available evidence in front of the commission it is clearly pointed to the unfair trade practice by opposite parties caused hardships to the complainant by selling defective products. So the opposite parties are directly bound to redress the grievance caused to the complainant. Therefore we hold that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the value of mobile phone Rs.18498/- along with compensation of Rs.3000/- and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the value of mobile phone Rs.18498/- to the complainant along with Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019. On payment of the above said amount to the complainant , the opposite parties are at liberty to collect MO1(mobile phone) from the commission .
Exts
A1-Invoice dtd.15/7/2020
A2 to A5- Service Records dtd. 10/11/20, 15/12/2020, 29/12/2020, 9/7/2021.
MO1-mobile phone
PW1- Shamsudheen.K-complainant.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew. Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
