DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM
Dated this 27th day of June 2024
Filed on: 12-10-2018
PRESENT
Shri. D.B. Binu - President
Shri. V. Ramachandran - Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N - Member
C.C 429/2018
COMPLAINANT
KN Mohan Babu, Sadgamaya, TT-81, Vengoor Post Kidangoor, Angamaly (via), Pin-683572.
(By Adv.M.R.Nandakumar, KMS Wakf Complex, Room No.1, Providence Road, Providence Junction, Kochi-682 018)
V/s
THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
- Home Phoenix Market City Mall, MI Home, LBS Marg,
Kurla West, Mumbai - 400 070. - Redmi Customer Care, Home Phoenix Market City, Unit No. G 18 A, 106/107 Whitefield Road, Opp: Mahadevapura CMC, Bangalore - 560 048.
- Techno Trade Retail Services India Private Limited, Door No. 40/2908 - Penta Menaka, Ground Floor, Shanmugam Road, Ernakulam - 682 031.
- TVS Electronics Ltd., Ground Floor, 39/4113 Sky Bright, Opposite Sony Center, Ravipuram, M.G. Road, Kochi - 682 016.
(op.2 and 4 rep. by Adv.Vipin P.Varghese, Jithin paul,Chamber No.556, KHCAA Chamber, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Pin-682 031)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant purchased a XIAOMI-Mobile Phone-Redmi 4A 2GB 16GB Gold866741034242943 from the 3rd opposite party on 20/12/2017 for Rs. 6,200/-. The warranty period of the mobile phone was for 1 year from the date of purchase, up to 20/12/2018. The mobile phone became non-functional and started having problems within 2 months from the date of purchase. Therefore, the complainant entrusted the mobile phone for replacement to the 4th opposite party on 09/03/2018. The opposite parties demanded Rs. 3,999/- for replacing the parts at a discount rate. The complainant refused the offer, insisting that the opposite parties were legally bound to replace the set, reimburse the money, or repair it without any cost as the mobile phone became defunct within the warranty period.
Despite the complainant’s repeated approaches to the opposite parties , no action was taken. The complainant had to travel 40 km from Angamaly to Ernakulam multiple times, but the opposite parties did not return or replace the mobile phone. The complainant demanded the respondents either replace the mobile phone or reimburse the money. The complainant claims an amount of Rs. 6,200/- as the price of the mobile phone and Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and suffering caused. Having failed to get a response from the opposite parties, the complainant is compelled to approach this commission.
The Commission may be pleased to order the opposite parties to pay Rs. 6,200/- as the price for purchasing the mobile phone and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the mental loss caused to the complainant.
2) Notice
The Commission issued a notice to all the opposite parties. The second and fourth opposite parties appeared and submitted their versions. However, despite this acknowledgment, the first and third opposite parties failed to submit their versions within the statutory deadline. Consequently, they have been set as ex-parte in these proceedings.
3) THE VERSION OF THE 2ND AND 4TH OPPOSITE PARTIES
The complainant's allegation of a manufacturing defect is false and that the phone's water damage was evident during inspection. They deny any negligence, deficiency in service, or unfair trade practices on their part and argue that the complainant is not eligible for any compensation.
The 2nd and 4th opposite party’s state that they have no information about whether the complainant purchased the mobile phone and require the complainant to provide strict proof, both documentary and oral, to verify the purchase and that the phone was within the warranty period. They allege that the complainant is falsely blaming them for damages caused by him and is inappropriately seeking warranty benefits.
The 2nd and 4th opposite parties deny that the complainant approached them regarding a damaged phone, claiming instead that the phone was exposed to water, which is not covered by the warranty.
They request the Commission to dismiss the complaint with costs and note that they reserve the right to file additional written statements or versions as the case progresses.
4). Evidence
A proof affidavit was filed by the complainant, and Exhibits A1 and A2 were marked to support his case.
Exhibit A1: Copy of the bill dated 20.12.2017 issued by the 3rd opposite party.
Exhibit A2: Copy of the service order dated 09.03.2018
5) The main points to be analyzed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant.
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, as per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The copy of the bill dated 20.12.2017 issued by the 3rd opposite party, produced by the complainant as Exhibit A1, establishes that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, Point No. i) goes against the opposite parties.
The complainant initiated legal action to seek redress for the deficiencies in service and the engagement in unfair trade practices by the opposite parity.
The evidence presented included a proof affidavit filed by the complainant, and it was unchallenged by the first and third opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant's claims were considered credible and supported by the evidence. Therefore, the complainant requests the commission to grant the relief sought, including compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practices.
The first and third opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the first and third opposite parties. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the first and third opposite parties. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
7). Analysis and Legal Reasoning
A) Maintainability of the Complaint
Under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The copy of the bill dated 20.12.2017 issued by the 3rd opposite party, produced by the complainant as Exhibit A1, establishes that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, this complaint is maintainable.
B. Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice
The complainant initiated legal action to seek redress for the deficiencies in service and the engagement in unfair trade practices by the opposite parties. The evidence presented included a proof affidavit filed by the complainant, and it was unchallenged by the first and third opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant's claims were considered credible and supported by the evidence.
The conscious failure of the first and third opposite parties to file their written versions despite receiving the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. The complainant's testimony, backed by documentary evidence (Exhibits A1 and A2), stands unchallenged.
Nachiket P. Shirgaonkar v/s Pandit Automotive Ltd. & Another, Revision Petition No. 3519 of 2006 in Appeal No. 1953 of 2005, Decided On, 25 February 2008, At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. AIR 2008 (NOC)2260(NCC).
“In this case, from day one onwards the vehicle was found to be defective which was admitted by the dealer himself through his letters. Naturally, encountered with these problems the consumer must have been shell shocked compelling him to knock at the doors of the Consumer Forum. Even before the Consumer Forum in the written submissions filed by OP 1, there is a clear admission of the manufacturing defects. Hence, we are convinced that the vehicle did suffer from manufacturing defects. This is a clear case of res ipsa loquitur i.e. facts speak themselves hence there is no need to refer the vehicle to a third party for giving an opinion.”
The Mobile Phone had a warranty period of one year from the date of purchase, extending until 20/12/2018. It became non-functional and experienced issues within two months of purchase. Given the short duration before these problems arose, we believe the Mobile Phone had an inherent manufacturing defect that could not be rectified, rendering it unsuitable for use.
C) Entitlement to Relief
Given the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices established against the opposite parties, the complainant is entitled to relief. The opposite parties are legally bound to repair or replace the mobile phone or reimburse the cost of the mobile phone since it became non-functional within the warranty period.
D. Costs of the Proceedings
The complainant has also claimed for mental agony and suffering. Given the repeated unsuccessful attempts to resolve the issue and the inconvenience caused to the complainant, this claim is justified. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered.
The evidence presented by the complainant remains unchallenged by the first and third opposite parties. Their failure to file written versions within the statutory period further strengthens the complainant’s case. The 2nd and 4th opposite parties' contention regarding water damage is not supported by any evidence and is therefore dismissed.
We determine that issue numbers (I) to (IV) are resolved in the complainant's favour due to the significant service deficiency and the unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite parties. Consequently, the complainant has endured considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses as a result of the negligence of the opposite parties.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is allowed as follows:
I. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 6,320/- (Rupees Six Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Only) to the complainant towards the cost of the mobile phone as evidenced by Exhibit A-1 (Invoice).
II. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and suffering. This amount is awarded for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, as well as for the mental agony and physical hardships endured by the complainant.
III. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards the cost of proceedings.
The opposite parties are jointly and severally mandated to comply with the directives mentioned above within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failure to comply with the payment orders under points I and II will result in interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint (12-10-2018) until the date of full payment realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this 27th day of June 2024
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Complainant’s evidence
Exhibit A1: Copy of the bill dated 20.12.2017 issued by the 3rd opposite party.
Exhibit A2: Copy of the service order dated 09.03.2018
