IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated, the 29^th day of July,  2022.

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt. Bindhu R.  Member

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 96/2019 (Filed on 21-06-2019)

Petitioner                                          :         James Abraham,

                                                                   Elavanal House,

                                                                   Poovathodu P.O.

                                                                   Pin -686578

                                                                   Kondoor village,

                                                                   Meenachil Taluk.

                                                                             Vs.

Opposite party                                 : (1)  Manager,

                                                                   Payyapplil Digital,

                                                                   Manarcad Building

River view Road,

Pala.                    

                                                             (2)  Managing Director,

                                                                   Lava International Ltd.

                                                                   A47 Sector, 58 Noida,

                                                                   UP – 201301.

O  R  D  E  R

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

            The complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          The brief of the complaint is that the complainant had purchased a LAVA Z50 model mobile phone from the first opposite party on 23-03-2019 for a consideration of Rs.4,500/-. The mobile phone was manufactured by the second opposite party.  The first opposite party promised that the mobile phone is very effective and can be used for a long time without any defects.  But after 10 days of purchase, the phone was not working due to software problems.  The phone was given to the first opposite party for repair works.  The phone was returned to the complainant after 45 days without doing the repair works and informed that it is not possible to rectify the defects of the phone.  The phone became faulty due to the manufacturing defect.  The act of the opposite parties is deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint.

          On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties.  The opposite parties failed to file their version or to appear before the Commission to defend their case.  The opposite parties were set exparte.

          The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Ext.A1 and Ext.A2.

          On the basis of the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence adduced, we would like to consider the following Points.

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what are the reliefs and costs?

For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together.

Point No.1 and 2.

     Ongoing through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone LAVA Z50 model manufactured by the second opposite party on 23-03-2019 for an amount of Rs.4,500/- from the first opposite party.  After 10 days of purchase of the mobile phone, the mobile phone was not working and the mobile phone was given to the first opposite party for repair.  Ext.A1 is the invoice dtd.23-03-2019 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant for the sale of the LAVA Z50  S/N:911635451386925 phone for an amount of Rs.4,500/-.  Ext.A2 is the copy of the  Ext.A1 invoice with remarks “software problems”  taSn-¨n«v 10 Znhkw BIp-¶-tX-bpÅq. Stuck BWv phone. Rate 1,305/-.  RWR water damage written by first opposite party at the time of accepting the phone for repair.

     It is clear that the phone become defective after ten days of purchase and the first opposite party accepted the phone for repair.  The opposite parties not cared to adduce any evidence that the defects of the phone is due to water damage and will not come within the warranty conditions.

     Even though the complainant alleges manufacturing defect for the mobile phone no expert evidence is adduced to prove manufacturing defect on the basis of the above findings, it is clear that the act of the opposite parties in not rectifying the defect of the phone within the warranty period is deficiency in service on their part.  Hence Point No.1 and 2 are found in favour of the complainant.  The complaint is allowed and we pass the following Order.

1. The opposite parties are directed to rectify the defects of the mobile phone LAVA Z50  S/N:911635451386925 free of cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order, failing in which opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.4,500/- to the complainant.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and sufferings with cost Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29^th day of July, 2022

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member                 Sd/-

Sri. Manulal V.S. President             Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu R.  Member                Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant

A1 – tax invoice No.PBC-10455 dtd.23-03-2019 issued by 1^st opposite party

A2 – Copy of invoice of Ext.A1 remarked as software problem.

Exhibits from the side of opposite party

Nil

                                                                                                     By Order

                                                                                                  Assistant Registrar