DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Wednesday the 26th day of July 2023
C.C.170/2023
Complainant
Muhammed Ajmal.M.K
Karikkandiyil (H),
Kunnamangalam – P.O,
Kuttikkattoor,
Kozhikode - 673 571.
Opposite Party
Prabin.K
Mobile lab, Ground Floor,
Alfahad arcade,
Sabha School cross Road,
Puthiyara,
Kozhikode – 673 004.
ORDER
By Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN– MEMBER
This is the complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 12th April 2023 the mobile phone of the complainant Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G Ne(8/256GB) variant was handed over to opposite party for replacing the power button. In the job card given it was wrongly entered as ‘No power on’ even though there was no other problem with the phone except with that of power button. On 13th April 2023 when contacted over phone, the opposite party informed that they are doing the work and would call back next day. On 14th April 2023 he received the reply that phone is not switching on and informed that the phone was in same condition when received by them. The software was then changed by them and informed that the condition of phone was same and they could have an attempt to change the mother board. He informed the opposite party either to change the mother board or pay back the price of phone.
3. There was no favourable reply form them for many days. On April 24th 2023 they told the phone can be switched on and its battery is not getting charged. On 26th the opposite party informed that the phone is ready and they changed the CPU which costs Rs.4,200/- and demanded him to pay back half of the amount. On enquiry, in the authorised service centre it was understood by him that the mother board of said phone is not available in India. The opposite party could not clarify his doubt how they changed the CPU when the same was not available in India.
4. The mobile phone which was purchased 1 year back only was destroyed by the opposite party. So the complainant prays to give direction to opposite party to pay him cost of the phone Rs.35,000/- and to give compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards the financial loss and mental agony suffered.
- The opposite party did not filed the version. They chose to remain as ex-parte.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, as alleged?
- Reliefs and costs.
- Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 on the side of complainant.
- Heard.
- Point No. 1: Ongoing through the complaint it is clear that the complainant is having issues with the repair service and not with the manufacturer. His main contention is that the phone given for replacement of switch button was damaged by the opposite party. Admittedly the opposite party is not the authorized service centre appointed by the manufacturer of the device.
- It is well settled that in consumer complaints, the onus to prove the deficiency in service is on the complainant. This has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SGS India Vs Dolphin International Ltd. - LL 2021 SC 544.
- Ext A1 is the job sheet given by the opposite party. The reported fault in Ext A1 is power battery complaint and no power on. The allegation of complainant is that “ no power on” is an entry made by mistake by the opposite party and device had no such complaint. On careful consideration and scrutiny of Ext A1, one cannot say that the said phone is free from any other internal complaints and problem of switch button only persisted.
- It cannot be thought that the reported fault “no power on now” was wrongly entered by the technician. There is absolutely no evidence that the alleged damage was caused to the device at the hands of the opposite party. In the absence of any such evidence, the opposite party cannot be held liable. The mere fact that the opposite party remained ex-parte does not automatically mean that the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for. It is for the complainant to prove the allegation in the complaint. As already stated, the onus is on the complainant to prove deficiency of service as alleged. As such there is no proof of any deficiency on the side of the opposite party and consequently complaint must fail.
- Point No. 2 : In view of findings on the above point, the complainant is not entitled to the relief sought for and the complaint is only to be dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 26th day of July, 2023.
Date of Filing: 05-05-2023.
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext A1 - job sheet given by the opposite party.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Witnesses for the Complainant:
PW1 -Ashique Ali.M.K
Witnesses for the opposite parties:
Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER
True copy,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
