DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 24^th day of June, 2023                                                                                                

                          Filed on: 30/07/2019

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                 Member                                                        

CC NO. 296/2016

Between

COMPLAINANT

Shibu Joseph, Sonia Shibu, W/o. Shibu, Kallukkaran House, H. No. 14/329, Palluruthy P.O., Kacherippady Thomas moor Church Road, Kochi 682006.

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

Ameer, M/s. Mobigo, Palluruthy Kacheripady, Near Pratheeksha Theatre, Kochi 6

FINAL ORDER

V. Ramachadran,  Member:

The complainant states that he had entrusted his mobile phone J5 Primewith the opposite party on 19/07/2019 due to the complaint of the charger pin. The opposite party had given a receipt for the phone of the complainant. When the complainant visited the opposite party after 2 days to receive the phone back after repairing from the opposite party, there were dots observed and black shade was seen and on enquiry it was told by the opposite party that the shade shall diminish after 2 days. The complainant therefore did not get his phone back and decided to wait for 2 days. When the complainant contacted the Executive Dealer of the Authorized Service Centre of Samsung the complainant was informed of about the mode of opening and the skill required for opening the phone. If the heating is over the display will get damaged. This is what happened in the case of the phone, the complainant alleges. Complainant therefore approached this Commission filing the petition stating that he is a vendor selling vegetables and fruits and he has sustained huge loss due to the above reason for which the phone had become defective and prayed for a compensation, Rs.500/- as rent of vehicle, Rs.1,000/- as wage and also to replace the display of the mobile phone.

Though notice was issued from the Commission, the opposite party didn’t appear and contested the case.

Complainant filed proof affidavit and four documents which are marked as Exbt. A1 to A4. Exbt. A1 is an estimate, Exbt. A2 is Tax invoice,
Exbt. A3 and A4 are bills.

We have gone through all documents produced by the complainant, proof affidavit and also the details furnished by the complainant at the time of hearing. Since the opposite party had not appeared before the Commission even though notice was issued to him and intimation was given to him by the Postal Authority and since the notice has returned as ‘unclaimed’ the Commission decided to consider the service of notice as deemed service and following observations are made.

Complainant had produced 4 documents from his side from which it is evident that the complainant had approached the opposite party as per Exbt. A1 for service and as per Exbt. A2 the complainant had handed over the phone to the opposite party. As per Exbt. A3 the value of the phone is Rs.11,990/-. As per Exbt. A4 the complainant purchased the phone from the opposite party for Rs.11,990/-.

Opposite party had accepted the phone for repair and had not turned up before the Commission to defend his case as evidenced from records. The complainant had given the phone for repair to the opposite party. Even though there is no digital proof or expert evidence to substantiate that the phone of the complainant had become defective and developed dots which are due to the deficient service of the opposite party, circumstantial evidences, proof affidavit, Exbt. A1 to A4 and the intentional absence of the opposite party have established the argument of the complainant and therefore the following orders are issued.

1. The opposite party shall replace the display of mobile phone of the complainant at free of cost.
2. The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
3. The opposite party shall pay Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant.

The above order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the Open Commission this 24^th day of June, 2023.

D.B.Binu, President

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s evidence:

Exbt. A1:    Estimate dated 22/07/2019

Exbt. A2:    Copy of tax invoice

Exbt. A3:    Copy of bill

Exbt. A4:    Copy of bill

Opposite parties’ evidence

Nil.

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No.296/2019

Order Date: 24/06/2023