BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 18^th day of June 2020.

(Muvattupuzha Camp Sitting)

Filed on : 23.09.2017

PRESENT:

Shri. V.S. Manulal President (in-charge)

Shri. V.Ramachandran Member

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. Member.

CC.No.377/2017

Between

O R D E R

Sreevidhia T.N, Member

1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant Dr.Sabine S., a medical practitioner states that he had purchased a mobile phone worth Rs.24,999/- with IME No.35890061511534 on 19.01.2017 which was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party for and on behalf of the 1^st opposite party. The mobile phone was purchased by the complainant from the 3^rd opposite party, the vendor by using the services of Flipkart, which is an economic platform. Very shortly, after the date of its purchase, the mobile phone had showed some defects, and there was no display on the cell phone and the same was entrusted with the 4^th opposite party for service on 02.06.2017, under its warranty period. The 4^th opposite party accepted the mobile phone from the complainant for service by representing himself as the authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party at Ernakulam. Thereafter on several occasions, the complainant contacted the 4^th opposite party for the return of the mobile but on each occasion, the complainant was told by the 4^th opposite party that the cell phone was send to the manufacturer for availing expert services. The complainant waited for the return of the item from the manufacture. On the last week of September 2017, the complainant had tried to contact the 4^th opposite party through their official land phone, there was no reply in the land phone though it was ringing. Again the complainant tried to contact the 4^th opposite party through the mobile number (written on the receipt) it always had produced the recorded voice of its service provider, that the number is either unreachable or switched off”. Later on 02.08.2017, the complainant’s personal staff visited the office of the 4^th opposite party and that was remained as closed. The complainant states that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties sold the phone through the 3^rd opposite party with latent defects which could not be identified by normal human eye. The complainant also states that the opposite parties failed to provide the technical services in getting the phone repaired and also failed to replace the phone in time. On several occasions, the complaint tried to contact the 4^th opposite party through phone about the defunctioning of the cell phone, but the opposite parties pretended doing some remedial measures, they never resulted to bring the machine into its normal function. Hence the complainant approached before this Forum, seeking for remedy in the deficiency of service of the opposite parties by directing them jointly and severally to rectify the defect of the cell phone free of cost to the complainant or to direct the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to replace the cell phone with new one and to pass an award of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the negligence in service of the opposite parties.

2) Notices were issued to the opposite parties from this Forum on 20.10.2017 and the said notice was served to the 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties on 30.10.2017 as revealed by proof of delivery of the postal department. Notice to the 3^rd opposite party returned as ‘left’. Notice sent to the opposite parties 1 and 3^rd through e-mail but the opposite parties neither appeared before the Forum nor filed their version. Consequently, the opposite parties 1 to 4 is set ex-parte.

3) The issues to be decided in this case are as follows:

(i) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service or unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties?

(ii) If so, the relief or compensation for which the complainant is entitled to get?

(ii) Cost of proceedings if any?

4) Evidence in this case consists of documentary evidence adduced by the complainant which were marked as Exbt.A1 and A2. No oral evidence adduced by the complainant. Being ex-parte no evidence furnished by the opposite parties. Heard the complainant’s Counsel on 17.02.2020.

5) Issue No. (i)

The complainant has stated he had purchased the mobile phone on 19.01.2017 with IMEI No. 35890061511534, manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party for and on behalf of the 1^st opposite party. It can be seen from Exbt.A1 that the IMEI Number of the mobile phone purchased by the complainant on 19.01.2017 bears 358960061511534. The IMEI Number given in the complaint filed by the complainant and that shown in the retail invoice bill seems different. Further the complainant has not made M/s.Health and Happiness Pvt. Ltd., no.42/01 & 43, Kacherakanahalli Village, Jadigenakalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru, Karnataka- 560 067 who had sold the mobile phone to the complainant through m/s.Flipkart.com. has not been made a party in the complaint. The complainant stated in his complaint that the phone shows defects shortly after the date of its purchase and the phone was entrusted to the 4^th opposite party for service under warranty. The 4^th opposite party received the phone from the complainant for service representing himself as the authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party. It can be seen that as per Exbt.A2 the physical condition of the mobile handset as noted was ‘not working’. Moreover, the complainant had not take any efforts from his side to examine the phone by experts to prove that the defects shown in the handset is due to some manufacturing defects. Instead of that the complainant explained his beliefs in words that the phone was a high performing brand as promoted by the 1^st opposite party but the phone is unable to perform its normal functions which is expected from a standard like commodity available in the market and it became disfunctional during its normal life period that too within its warranty period. A mere say instead of production of an authentic record from an expert regarding the genuity of the defect has not been made by the complainant in this case. Taking into accounts, the overall facts submitted by the complainant it can be seen that the complainant had failed to substantiate any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties. Hence issue No. (i) is found against the complainant.

6) Issue Nos. (ii) and (iii)

Since issue No (i) is found against the complainant, we do not consider the issue Nos. (ii) and (iii).

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 18^th day of June2020.

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

Sd/-

V.S.Manulal, President (in-charge)

Sd/-

V.Ramachandran, Member

Forwarded by Order

Senior Superintendent

APPENDIX

Opposite party’s Exhibits :: Ex-parte (Nil)

Date of Despatch ::

By Hand ::

By Post ::

………………………