IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 38/2021 (filed on 10-02-2021)
Petitioner : Thomas Abraham,
4th floor, Aman Squre,
Adichira,
Kottayam – 686016.
Vs.
Opposite party : My G,
Kottumala building,
Nagampadam,
Kottayam – 686006.
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
The case is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Complainant’s case is that he gave his mobile phone Apple’s i-phone 7Plus (256 GB) to the opposite party with a charging complaint. At the time of submission of phone, it was not turning on. The opposite party asked him to send the mobile phone to their head office in Kozhikode. The complainant agreed to it. The next day the complainant got a call from the opposite party saying that the charging socket was not working. On the next day they called him again and told that the IC chip in the board was not working. For replacing both the parts, they demanded Rs.3800. The complainant agreed to that also. After sometime on the same day the opposite party again called him and told that the display had some defect in the quality. There are half a dozen white spot in the screen and a curve shaped black line at the corner of the display.
When the phone was given to the opposite party there was no such complaint. The complaint to the display might have caused either by an inflated battery or the dismantling by unexperienced hands. The display itself costs Rs.20,000/-. The phone was gifted by the complainant’s mother to him. So he had an emotional attachment also to the said phone. The further damage to the phone has caused due to the negligence of the opposite party and so the complaint is filed for replacement of the phone and compensation.
Though due notice was received by the opposite party, they did not care to appear before the Commission or file version. Hence the opposite party is set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit along with two documents which
were marked as Exhibits A1 and A2.
On perusal of the pleadings and evidence we see that the issues to be decided are whether there is any deficiency from the opposite party and whether it is to be compensated?
The complainant’s case is that the mobile phone had no complaint to the
display when he gave it to the opposite party for rectifying its charging complaint. But after giving it for service the opposite party called and informed him that the display of the phone was damaged. Allegedly this happened due to the mishandling of the phone by the opposite party. In the proof affidavit the complainant has stated that when the phone was returned by the opposite party after the service, the original screen of the phone was replaced by a duplicate screen.
The complainant has produced Exhibits A1 and A2 which are the bill issued by the opposite party at the time of repair and the original bill of the purchase of the phone respectively. The complainant though alleges some inherent defects in the phone, has not impleaded the manufacturer company.
The impugned mobile phone had been used for 3 years before it got damaged and the period of warranty also had expired.
In A1, the job slip issued by the opposite party to the complainant it is recorded as ‘panel’ in the column of working parts. So it is clear from this that the panel/display of the phone was in a working condition at the time of giving it for service.
As there is an allegation of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party by the complainant which is unchallenged, we are of the view that there is some grievances caused to the complainant. As there is no evidence for a manufacturing defect and no manufacturer is in the party array, the replacement of the phone is not admissible.
Hence the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite party is directed
to repair the mobile phone at free of cost and to pay a compensation of 10,000/- to the complainant.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of this Order, failing which the opposite party shall pay Rs.10,000/- with 9% interest per annum to the complainant.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 14th day of July, 2022
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of job slip
A2 – Bill dtd.10-11-2016
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
