Kerala

Idukki

CC/115/2022

Alphonsa Thomas - Complainant(s)

Versus

My G Mobiles Seles and service - Opp.Party(s)

22 Feb 2023

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 12.7.2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  22^nd  day of   February,  2023

Present :

                   SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                  PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.115/2022

     Between

Complainant                                      :   Alphonsa Thomas, D/o. Thomas,

                                                              Elavunkalchalil House,

                                                              Irumbupalam, Muduppara,

                                                              Valara P.O., Adimali – 685 561.

        And

Opposite Party                                   :   The Manager,

                                                                MyG Mobil Sales and Service,    

                                                                Adimali, Pin – 685 561.

O R D E R

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

This case originates from a complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act of 2019, (the Act, for short). Case of complainant is briefly discussed here under:

 

Complainant had purchased a smartphone on 18/8/ 2021 manufactured by Vivo company from opposite party for Rs. 20,990 /-. Within a week phone had switch off several times. It's microphone often stopped functioning. Complainant had immediately given it to opposite party for repairs. After a week, opposite party had returned the phone claiming that it has been repaired and that it would function normally. However, same defects surfaced again after a week. This time opposite party had refused to look into the complaint stating that there was nothing wrong with the phone and that nothing is to be done from their side. Though the complainant insisted that the phone should be repaired as defects were persisting, without costs, since warranty was live, nothing was done by opposite party. Opposite party had cheated complainant by giving her a defective phone. Now more defects of the phone are surfacing. Complainant submits that opposite party had sold a defective phone to her and are refusing to service it. There is deficiency in service apart, from sale of defective goods.  She prays for reimbursement of cost of the smartphone from opposite party, damages of Rs. 5000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 2000/- also.

 

Complaint was taken on file and notice was issued to opposite party. Though served with registered notice, opposite party has not appeared or filed  written version. Hence, it was set experte. Complainant has filed proof affidavit. Same was read in evidence. She has submitted copy of the invoice evidencing purchase of smartphone by her from opposite party. Same was marked as exhibit P1. Evidence was closed and complainant was  heard.

                                                                                                          (cont….2)

• 2  -

Now the points with arise for consideration are :

1) whether smartphone was not functioning properly?

2) weather opposite party had refused to service it?

3) whether there is deficiency in service in not servicing the phone?

4) whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

5) final order and costs?

 

Point numbers 1 to 4  are considered together:

 

Complainant has pleaded that new smartphone purchased by her was not  functioning properly within a week of its purchase and opposite party had, despite there being warranty, refused to look into her complaint and repair the phone. Proof affidavit averments on these lines remain  unchallenged and proves her case in this regard, which is supported by P1. Deficiency in service on the part of opposite party is proved. Therefore we find that complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for. Point numbers 1 to 4 are answered accordingly.

 

Point number 5:

 

In the result, complaint is allowed upon the following terms:

 

a)  Opposite party is directed to return Rs. 20,990/- with 12% interest from      18/8/2021 till date of payment/realisation to complainant being the price of the smartphone paid by her and upon such receipt, she will produce the smartphone before this Commission within seven days of it.

 

b) Opposite party shall also pay  Rs.5000/- towards damages with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of this order till payment/ realisation and Rs.2000/- towards litigation costs to her.

 

d) Opposite party comply with this order within 45 days of receipt of a copy of this order.

 

Complainant  shall take back extra sets of copies without delay.

 

          Pronounced by this Commission on this the  22^nd day of February, 2023

 

                                                                                            Sd/-

      SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                            Sd/-

     SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                                   Sd/-

   SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                (cont….3)

• 3  -

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1     -  Tax invoice dated18.8.2021, for the phone.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

                                                                                                                            Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                                                                         ASSISTANT REGISTRAR