BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             : MEMBER

C.C.No. 415/2018  Filed on 21/11/2018

ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022

[Order is reviewed suo-moto dated 26/04/2022]

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT: 

This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:

1. The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant purchased a REDMI note 4 Touch Screen Mobile phone on 13/04/2018 at 8.10pm from the 1^st opposite party by paying Rupees 11,300/-.  At the time of purchase the 1^st opposite party dealer assured that the said phone is having one year free service warranty of the 2^nd respondent and full replacement warranty of the 3^rd respondent.  While on use the above said touch screen Mobile phone was fully dead on 01/10/2018.  Immediately on the same day at about 12.30pm the petitioner approached the 2^nd opposite party authorised service agent for repairs.  The 2^nd opposite party informed and demanded the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.8,750/- as the service and replacement charges of the phone.  The petitioner informed the second opposite party service contractor that the said phone is having full replacement warranty for a period of one year and the same is also mentioned in the sefvice order issued by the service contractor and the warranty card.  The 2^nd opposite party directed the petitioner to approach the 1^st opposite party dealer to replace the same with a new one.  The 1^st opposite party was not considered the request of the petitioner to change the phone with brand new one.  Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances.

2. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to be the opposite parties.  Notice issued to the 1^st opposite party was returned with an endorsement refused.  Hence the process of notice against the 1^st opposite party is completed, 1^st opposite party was called absent and set ex parte on 01/07/2019.  The notices issued to opposite parties 2 & 3 were accepted.  As opposite parties 2 &3 failed to enter appearance before this Commission on the date fixed for the same, the   opposite parties 2&3 were called absent and set ex parte on 01/08/2019 by this Commission.

3.    The evidence in this case consists of PW1, Ext.P1 to P7 series on the side of the complainant and the Expert Commission report submitted before this Commission is marked as Ext.C1.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 being declared ex parte, there is no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the opposite parties. 
4. Issues to be considered:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the

     part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitle to the relief claimed in the complaint?
3. Order as to cost?

5. Heard.  Perused records, affidavit and documents. To establish the case of the complainant, the complainant sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7 series were marked.  Ext.A1 is the copy of purchase bill dated 13/04/2018.  Ext.A2 is the copy of warranty card of Redmi Note 4 mobile phone.  Ext.A3 is the copy of service order dated 01/10/2018.  Ext.A4 is the copy of Advocate notice issued to 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties dated 04/10/2018.  Ext.A5 is the copy of postal receipts dated 04/10/2018.  Ext.A6 is the copy of returned Advocate notice issued to the 1^st respondent dated 05/10/2018.  Ext.A7 (a) is the copy of acknowledgement card of Legal notice received by the 2^nd opposite party dated 06/10/2018.  Ext.A7(b) is the copy of acknowledgement card of legal notice received by 3^rd opposite party on 13/10/2018.  As the opposite parties not entered appearance and adduced any evidence, there is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite parties.  In the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties 1 to 3 to disprove the case put forward by the complainant against the opposite parties, the evidence adduced by the complaint is unchallenged.  Hence, we are accepting the evidence adduced by the complainant in the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties.  The complainant being an Advocate Clerk he was depending on the phone for e-court reference etc., because of the non functioning of the Mobile phone has affected his professional work also.  To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant filed an application for appointing an Expert Commission as IA.253/2019 and the same was allowed.  The Expert Commission appointed by this Commission has filed Ext.C1 report which discloses that the mobile phone purchased by the complainant is having major defect such as battery damage, non functioning of the touch screen and capacitor damage etc.  In view of the above discussion we find that by swearing an affidavit as PW1 and marking the document as Ext.P1 to P7 series, and the observation in Ext.C1 Expert Commission report, the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite parties.  From the evidence available before this Commission we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, by which the complainant has suffered financial loss and mental agony.  As there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, they are jointly and severally liable to compensate the losses suffered by the complainant.
6. In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs. 5,500/- (Rupees Five Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till the date of realization/remittance. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 28^th  day of February,  2022.

(Order dated 28/02/2022 is reviewed suo-moto)

There occurred an error apparent on the face of the record, hence the order dated 28/02/2022 is suo-moto reviewed.It was inadvertently omitted to include opposite party No.3 in the party arrary.So the order dated 28/02/2022 is reviewed by including opposite party No.3 in the party array.

The reviewed order will be treated as one which was passed as on 28/02/2022.

C.C. No. 415/2018

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:  NIL
5. COURT EXHIBIT:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Sd/-

                                                                                                                             PRESIDENT