IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM.

Dated this the 22^nd    day of February, 2021

Present:               Sri. Manulal V.S., President

                             Smt. Bindhu R. Member

                             Sri. K.M. Anto, Member       

CC No.136/20(filed on 18-9-20)

Complainant                             : Meto Jospeh

                                                            Vayampooru House,

                                                            Thayyil, Pala PO,

                                                            686575

                                                          Vs.

Opposite parties                                 : M/s. Speed Service and Repairing

                                                            Ground Floor,

                                                            Bay Pride Mall, Marine Drive,

                                                            Ernakulam-31

.

ORDER

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

          The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows.

          The complainant is a 3^rd year degree student at  St.Thomas College Pala.  The complainant’s mobile phone MI Max2, 2020 phone got damaged on 2^nd February 2020 and the display of the phone was not working.  The complainant had purchased a new display from the opposite party for a payment of Rs.2400/- on 8^th February 2020 under the assurance that they would take back the display if for any reason it do not match with the phone.  As the display did not match with his phone, the complainant approached the opposite party for fitting a new display.  After thorough examination of the mobile phone the opposite party confirmed that the phone is in working condition.  The opposite party assured the complainant that there was not much damage to the display and would fix a new display.  However as there was delay in getting new stock the opposite party informed that they will do the repair of the display as soon as the new stock reaches, which may take one week.  The complainant enquired about the phone but no replay was received.  On August 6^th  the opposite party informed that the phone is ready.  On 7^th August complainant’s friend picked up the phone.  However the phone he received back was in 3 parts.  Battery in one cover, display in another and the board in a third cover.  Moreover the power code was broken. When the complainant assembled the parts he realized that the phone was not working.  When the complainant had given the phone for repair, only the display was damaged, and the phone was in working condition.  When the complainant informed this issue to the opposite party they did not accept the responsibility which caused considerable mental distress to the complainant as he had purchased the mobile with considerable financial difficulties and moreover he could not attend the online classes.  Complainant also lost all the data files stored in the phone.  The complainant faced considerable mental agony and financial difficulties due to this issue.  The act of the opposite party is deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.

          On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite party.

          The opposite party failed to file their version or appear before the commission to defend their case.  The opposite party was set exparte.

          The complainant filed proof affidavit and exhibits A1 and A2 were marked.

          On going through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence on record, we would like to consider the following points.

1. Whether there is deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party?
2. If so what are the reliefs and costs?

For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider point no.1 and 2 together.

          On going through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant, and evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant who is a 3^rd year degree student had purchased a display for the mobile phone M1 Max 2, 2020 from the opposite party, on 8^th February 2020 for a consideration of Rs.2400/-.  The display was purchased under the assurance that the opposite party would take back the display if for any reason,  it do not match with the phone.  As the display did not match with the phone, the complainant handed over the mobile phone for fitting a new display as per Ext.A2 to the opposite party on 14^th February 2020.  After repair the phone was received on 7^th August 2020 in three parts.  On assembling the three parts it was found that the mobile phone was not even working.  When the mobile phone was handed over for repair, the phone was working and only the display was damaged.  Due to this the complainant lost valuable data stored in the mobile phone and the phone also damaged.

          The act of the opposite party by not replacing a new display to the mobile phone and damaging the entire mobile phone including the data is deficiency in service.

          Hence we allow the complaint and pass the following order.

1. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 2400/- to the complainant.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and suffering with cost of Rs1000/- to the complainant.

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

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 22^nd  day of February,2021

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member                  Sd/-

Sri. Manulal V.S., President            Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu R. Member                  Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

A1-Bill

A2-Service request dtd 14/2/20

MO1-Parts of the mobile phone

By Order,

Senior Superintendent.