DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 28th day of April, 2023
Filed on: 03/09/2018
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
CC NO. 358/2018
Between
COMPLAINANT
Mohammed Haneefa, S/o. Sulaiman, Oolikara House, Ponoth Road, Kaloor, Cochin 682017
(Rep. by Adv. T.M. Abdul Latheef, “Sadakath”, Ponoth Road, Kaloor, Cochin 682017)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1. My G Edappally, Panasonic Mobiles, No.723, Ground Floor, NH 47, Opp. Lulu Mall, Edappally, Cochin 682024
2. Manager, Voice Plus, 2nd Floor, Aiswarya Buildings, Krshaka Road, Opp. FACT Godown, Cochin 682016
3. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., Branch Office: Door No. 37/2022 C, D, G & H, 2nd Floor, Joseph & Valentines Building, Subhash Chandra Boss Road, Jawahar Nagar, Kadavanthra, Cochin 682020)
FINAL ORDER
Sreevidhia T.N., Member:
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
As attracted by the advertisement made by the 1st opposite party, the complainant purchased a mobile phone from the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs.7,500/-. After purchasing the same the complainant kept the said phone for 2 days in the very same packet without charging the same, since he has to attend some urgent family problem. It was on the 3rd day the complainant took the phone for putting the same for charging but it was not getting charged. The complainant was under the impression that the problem will be solved and the mobile phone will be regaining in usable condition. At last the complainant realized that the mobile phone was not working at all and it is a defective one and the 1st opposite party has deceived him by selling such a defective phone. The complainant states that the company and the dealer are liable under law so far as the customer is concerned even if the article given by the company for sale was a defect less system by way of various liabilities.
The complainant on the 8th day which includes the date of purchase took the phone with the entire packing to the 1st opposite party has received the phone on 12/04/2018 and they also were convinced that the phone is not a working. So they accepted the same stating that the complainant will be getting the said phone replaced. The 1st opposite party argued that as seven days was over from the date of purchase, replacement will not be made and hence they can only repair the phone. The complainant told the 1st opposite party that the defect is a manufacturing defect and hence he has given the defective set which did not work even for one minute, so there is no point in stating that replacement will be given. So the complainant handed over the phone without taking back the same telling that the phone should be replaced or that the amount should be given. 1st opposite party has not issued any separate receipt for having received the same, but endorsed at the back side of the bill that “received for service”.
Thereafter the complainant issued lawyer notice to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties, since the 2nd opposite party is representing the manufacturing company as they are undertaking the entire service to Panasonic phone. The lawyer notices sent to the opposite parties were accepted but no reply was given. The said notices also accepted but the opposite parties but they have not refunded the amount. Complainant states that the opposite parties adopted unfair trade practice towards the complainant. Since the phone is already returned and the inaction on the part of the opposite parties causes huge pain, mental sufferings to the complainant. Hence the complainant approaches this Commission seeking orders directing the opposite party to refund the price of the mobile phone along with a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2,500/- as lawyer notice charges.
2. Notice.
Notices issued to the opposite parties from this Commission on 16/01/2020. Opposite parties accepted the notices on 21/01/2020, but the opposite parties did not appeared and no version filed. Hence on 23/01/2021 they were set ex-patre. Complainant filed an I.A. to implead the manufacturer, Panasonic Mobile as an additional opposite party No. 3. I.A. 66/2021 allowed and notice was issued to 3rd opposite party. Notice sent to 3rd opposite party is seen served on 27/02/2021. 3rd opposite party also not appeared before the Commission and no version filed. Hence 3rd opposite party is also set ex-parte. The case posted for ex-parte evidence of the complainant to 15/05/2021.
3. Evidence
Nor the complainant neither the counsel for the complainant was absent on almost all the days of proceedings of the case. Hence the Commission considered the documents filed along with the complainant as evidence. Complainant filed 8 documents along with the complaint. At the time of evidence the complainant has not turned up, even though the Commission has given ample chance to the adduce evidence if any. 8 documents filed by the complainant were marked as Exbt. A1 to A8. Nor the complainant neither the counsel for the complainant was absent on almost all the days of proceedings of the case. Hence the Commission considered the documents filed along with the complainant as evidence. Complainant filed 8 documents along with the complaint. No oral evidence from the side of complainant. Since the matter pertains to the year 2018, the case is posted for orders.
We have gone through the complaint and documents filed by the complainant.
4. Points for consideration in this case are
1. Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
2. If so, reliefs and costs?
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a mobile phone from the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs.7,500/-. It was on the 3rd day of purchase the complainant took the phone for charging but it was not getting charged. The complainant realize that the mobile phone is not working and he entrusted the mobile phone to the 1st opposite party asking for refund the price of the mobile phone. But the 1st opposite party denied the complainant’s request stating reason that ‘seven days are over from the date of purchase’ and hence replacement will not be made. Hence the complainant handed over the phone without tacking back the same telling that the phone should be replaced or the price of the mobile phone should be refunded.
Commission observed the facts with the documents filed by the complainant. Exbt. A1 is the invoice issued by the 1st opposite party dated 04/04/2018 for Rs.7,500/-. As per Exbt. A2, A4 and A7 legal notices sent to the opposite parties by the complainant clearly shows that the mobile phone had some defect and it was too with the warranty period itself. Even though legal notices was sent to the opposite parties, no reply was given to the complainant by the opposite parties. Hence it is presumed that opposite parties admitted the allegation framed against them by the complainant in the legal notice. Opposite party had endorsed on the reverse side of Exbt. A1 that ‘the product received for service’ on 12/04/2018. The complainant had purchased the product on 04/04/2018. The complainant entrusted the mobile phone on the 8th day from the date of purchase to the opposite party. But the opposite party refused the replacement of phone stating flimsy reason that “7 days over”. As a dealer 1st opposite party has acted unfair trade practice to the complainant. There was no such condition that ‘replacement will not be made if returned within 7 days’.
In this case, opposite parties are not appeared before the Commission even though they accepted notice from this Commission and no version filed by them. The 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 levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite party. Since no evidence was filed by the opposite parties to prove that the phone has no manufacturing defect, Point No. 1 and 2 is proved in favour of the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and hereby pass the following orders.
1. The opposite party shall refund an amount of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) as price of mobile phone purchased by the complainant.
2. The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the inconvenience and mental agony suffered by the complainant.
3. The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand 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 28th day of April, 2023.
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/- V.Ramachandran, Member Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s evidence:
Exbt. A1: Copy of Invoice dated 04/04/2018
Exbt. A2: Copy of lawyer notice
Exbt. A3: Copy of Postal receipt
Exbt. A4: Copy of lawyer notice
Exbt. A5: Copy of postal receipt
Exbt. A6: Copy of AD card
Exbt. A7: Copy of lawyer notice
Exbt. A8: Copy of postal receipt
Opposite parties’ evidence
Nil.
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 358/2018
Order Date: 28/04/2023
