IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
C C No. 60/2018 (filed on 05/04/2018)
Petitioner : Abdul Hameed,
S/o. Sayed Muhammad Rawther,
Salsabeel,
Chalukunnu, Kottoayam
(Adv. Rohit Nair)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) The Proprietor,
New Micortone Mobiles,
CSI Complex Baker Junction,
Kozhichandha line, T.B. Road,
Opp. Bhima, Kottayam.
(Adv. Anish Kumar K.)
2) The Managing Director,
Intex technologies (India) Ltd.
B-26 sector -83, NOIDA,
Dist. Gautam Budh Nagar (M.P)
201301, (D-18/2 okhla phase II,
New Delhi 110020).
3) The Proprietor,
The Intex Service Centre,
AK Enterprises,
Thekkum Gopuram, Kottayam.
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Case of the complainant is as follows.
On 09-09-2017, the complainant purchased a new mobile phone named ‘Intex Aqua 4.04G ‘4G’ for a sum of Rs.4,800/- from the 1st opposite party, who is the mobile phone dealer. The said phone was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. When the product was delivered, the 1st opposite party assured that the product was fine and working perfectly. Within a few months, the mobile phone developed certain faults, for which repeated complaints were made to the 1st opposite party. However the 1st opposite party directed to the complainant to consult the authorised service centre of the 2nd opposite party. On 07-01-2018, the complainant made a complaint regarding the mobile phone with the 3rd opposite party and entrusted the mobile phone to the 3rd opposite party. But the 3rd opposite party made no effort to rectify the defects of the phone. It is averred in the complaint that due to the negligent act of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered loss and injury and loss of professional practice for that he is entitled for compensation. Hence this complaint.
Upon notice from this Commission, 1st and 3rd opposite party appeared before the Commission. Though the 3rd opposite party appeared before the Commission, 3rd opposite party did not care to file the version or contest the case. The 1st opposite party filed version contenting as follows.
The complainant had purchased the mobile phone from the 1st opposite party, at the time of purchase mobile phone was working properly. The petitioner never approached the 1st opposite party for complaining about the mobile phone. The 1st opposite party never directed the complainant to consult the 3rd opposite party. First opposite party is the authorised dealer of the 2nd opposite party. If the damage or complaint is occurred to the product of the 2nd opposite party, it is the duty of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties to cure such defects. The 1st opposite party have no liability to rectify and there is no unfair trade practice from the part of the 1st opposite party.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext.A1 was marked. The 1st opposite party filed proof affidavit and no documentary evidence from the side of 1st opposite party.
On evaluation of complaint and the evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties and whether he is entitled for any reliefs?
It is admitted by the 1st opposite party that on 09-09-2017 the complainant had purchased a mobile phone named ‘Intex Aqua 4.04G’ ‘4G’ from the 1st opposite party, which is manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. Ext.A1 is an invoice proves that the complainant had paid Rs.4,800/- as the price of the mobile phone. According to the complainant within a few months from the date of purchase, the mobile phone developed certain faults such as constant slow down, quick battery drainage and cannot make any outgoing calls. According to him, he made repeated complaints with the 1st opposite party to rectify the defects of the mobile phone. Inspite of the rectifying the defect, the 1st opposite party directed the complainant to consult to the 3rd opposite party who is the authorised service centre of the 2nd opposite party. Accordingly on 07-01-2018, the complainant entrusted the mobile to the 3rd opposite party. It is alleged by the complainant that the 3rd opposite party had not take any steps to cure the defects of the mobile phone. Though the complainant pleaded that the said mobile phone had warranty for 1 year and the defect was occurred within the period of warranty he did not adduce any evidence to show that the said mobile phone had coverage of warranty for a period of one year. According to the complainant within a few months from the date of purchase, the mobile phone showed some troubles and on 07-01-2018 he entrusted the mobile phone to the 3rd opposite party to cure such defect. However he did not produce any evidence to substantiate his case that the said phone had defects and he had entrusted the mobile phone to the 3rd opposite party. Moreover the complainant did not take any steps to adduce evidence to show that the said mobile phone had inherent manufacturing defect or any other defect. The complainant did not care to get the mobile phone examined by any expert to substantiate his case. In the absence of any evidence to show that the mobile had suffered from any defect, we cannot accept the contention of the complainant. In this circumstance, we are of the opinion that the complainant had failed to prove his case with cogent evidence and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 23rd day of February, 2021.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 : Copy of invoice dtd.09-09-2017 by 1st opposite party
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
