SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

     This is a  complaint filed by the complainant  U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the OP to refund  the battery charge of Rs.1500/-  to the complainant    along with Rs.8500/-  as the  compensation for mental agony and cost caused to the complainant  for   the deficiency of service and  unfair trade practice on the part of OP.

  The brief of the complaint :

    The complainant had purchased a Redmi  9 Power mobile phone from OP on 3/5/2021 for an amount of Rs.10,590/- . Thereafter, on 8/12/2022 after the warranty period, the  battery of the phone became defective.  Then the complainant approached the OP’s  shop and demanded the original  battery  of the phone and he paid Rs.1500/- as the battery charge and service charge.  But after changing the battery the quick charging option is not given to the complainant’s phone.  Moreover, the 100% charging system is  also failed.  Then the complainant informed the matter to OP and he produced the mobile phone before the authorized service centre dtd.17/7/2023.  Then the  technician checked the mobile phone and stated that the battery  inserted to the phone is duplicate and the complaint is due  to the  battery.  Then the complainant again changed the battery and he incurred Rs.1119.82/- to changing the battery also.  Then on 12/7/2023 the  complainant also filed a complaint before  MYG customer care and complaint registered as C-C- No.71668.  But no reply from the side of OP’s grievance cell.  The act of   OP the complainant  caused much mental agony and financial loss.   So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  Hence the complaint.

           After filing the complaint, notice  issued to OP . After receiving the notice the OP had not appeared before the commission and not filed  version . The commission had to hold that the OP has no version as such  this case came to be proceed against  the OP  is  set  exparte. 

    Even though the OP have remained ex-parte it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by him against the OP.  Hence the complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents. Accordingly the complainant  has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 4 documents marked as Exts.A1 to A4 .  The complainant was examined as PW1.   So the OP remain absent in this case.  At the end the Commission heard the case on merit.

    Let us have a clear glance at the relevant documents. The complainant had purchased the mobile phone on 3/5/2021 for an amount of Rs.10,590/- from the OP that shows in Ext.A1 document.  After the  warranty period on 8/12/2022 the battery of the phone became defective and the  complainant approached the OP’s shop and demanded the original battery of the phone.  Then the complainant paid Rs.1,500/- as the battery charge and service charge that shows in Ext.A2 document.  Ext.A3 is the service record issued by the  service centre noted  fault description” poor battery life, Duplicate battery, need to change battery”.  In Ext.A4  is the duplicate battery photo.  So it is clear that the battery inserted to the mobile phone is not an original battery.  But the OP received the battery charge and service charge as Rs.1500/-.  Thereafter the complainant also paid another battery charge for Rs.1,119.82/-.  According to the complainant failure to provide original battery to the  mobile phone the OP is directly  bound to redress the grievance caused to the complainant.  Therefore we hold that the OP is  liable to  refund  the  value of  battery Rs.1500/-  to the complainant along with  Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant  and Rs.1500/- as litigation cost .

            In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing  the opposite party to refund  the  value of  battery and other charge of Rs.1500/-  to the complainant along with  Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant  and Rs.1500/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order.   Failing which the   complainant is  at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019

Exts:

A1- Tax invoice

A2-Invoice bill dtd.8/12/2022

 A3-Service record.

A4- Maxelon(photo)

PW1-Robin T. Xaviour -  complainant.

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                      MEMBER                                           MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR