DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 28^th day of June, 2024

                                                                   Filed on: 16/01/2023

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                             Member

C.C. NO. 22/2023

COMPLAINANT

Riyaliz Thomas, S/o. Benny T.J., Thekkeil House, Near CMI Christ School, Iritty P.O., Kannur 670703.

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTY

1. Realme India, Realme Service Centre, Shop No. 4A, Bay Pride Mall, Ground Floor, Shanmugham Road, Menaka, Marine Drive, Kochi 682031.
2. Realme Mobile Telecommunication (I) Pvt. ltd., 3^rd Floor, Tower B, Bldg No. 8, DLF Cybersity, Gurugram, Haryana 122002.

(Rep. by Adv. Muhammed Musthafa M.I., FirmJusLex& Associates, B-F6, Mather Square, Opp. North Railway Station, Ernakulam 682018)

F I N A L    O R D E R

Sreevidhia T.N., Member:

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant had purchased a Real Me GT Master Edition (IMEI 868349056825898) via online on 18/12/2021. On 14/11/2022 the mobile phone showed some troubles with screen. The display of the phone was affected with screen burning issue which happened without any specific cause overnight. Then the display of the phone becoming black and pink colour on the affected portion of the display. Then the complainant had submitted the phone for service at authorized service centre of the brand at Marine Drive, Cochin on 16/11/2022 under the complaint id No. E19R221116021. It was intimated by the officials of the service centre that as phone is covering under the brand warranty the same shall be replaced from the end of the company and they have ordered for replacement of display. After 15 days the opposite party have informed the complainant that warranty is void and the said display is not covered under warranty stating the reason that there has a small line of scratch on the middle portion of the phone.

The complainant had made a complaint at the toll free number provided by the Brand on the assurance that a call back shall be initiated within 48 hours of the registration of the complaint. But no response received from the toll free number. Another call was registered with the company toll free number to seek the status of the complaint. At that time they informed the complainant that the complaint registered has been closed for the reasons that the same has been communicated with the complainant. The complainant states that no call was received with this regard and no reason of denial of warranty stating the reason that display has a scratch is a clear case of unfair trade practice since it is not the actual reason for the display. After that the complainant had also registered a complaint in National Consumer Helpline and the complaint was registered and the complainant had received a call from Realme head office and they connected with the service centre Manager also in that call. On that time the Manager clearly said that the display issue will be covered and its happening is due to its defects. The complainant states that the cause of the defect is the manufacturing error of the display not the scratch on it. Eventhough the opposite party had accepted it they are not ready to provide the service. This is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties. Hence the complainant approached this Commission seeking redressal of her grievance. The following reliefs are sought by the complainant.

1. Service of the mobile phone including change of display under warranty.
2. Necessary compensation for non-usage of mobile phone and damage to the product in that effect.
3. Compensation for the deficiency in service of the opposite party.

2. Notice :

Notice was issued to the opposite parties from this Commission on 24/01/2023. Opposite parties seen served on 27/01/2023. Eventhough the notice accepted opposite party not appeared and filed their version. Hence opposite party (Realme India, Realme Service Centre, Marine Drive, Kochi) is set as ex-parte. On 13/02/2023 the complainant had filed a petition to implead the manufacturer of the Realme mobile phone as 2^nd opposite party. The petition was allowed on 14/03/2023. Realme Mobile Telecommunications India Pvt. Ltd., 3^rd Floor, Tower B, Building Number 8, DLF Cyber city, Gurugram, Gurgaon, Haryana 122052, India is impleaded as 2^nd opposite party.

Upon notice 2^nd opposite party appeared on 19/04/2023 and filed vakalath and prayed time for filing version and the case was adjourned to 22/06/2023. On 22/06/2023, when the case was taken on file, 1^st  and 2^nd opposite parties were absent. No version is seen filed by 2^nd opposite party till 22/06/2023 after filing their vakalath on 19/04/2023. Statutory time for filing the version of 2^nd opposite party expired. Hence 2^nd opposite party also set as ex-parte and the case posted for evidence of the complainant.

3. Evidence

Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidences filed by the complainant which were marked as Exbt. A1, A2 and A3 (series). The complainant has also produced a pendrive, the call recordings of the complainant with the Realme Customer Care Service. Exbt. A1 is the Realme Service Centre Handover report of the complainant’s phone dated 16/11/2022, Exbt. A2 is the copy of the image of the phone showing the affected parts of the device, Exbt. A3 is the purchase bill of the complainant’s phone for Rs.25,999/-. The complainant had purchased the realme GIT Master Edition (Cosmos Black 128GB) for Rs.25,999/-. The complainant had also exchanged Redmi Note phone to the opposite party. The price of the exchanged product comes to Rs.11,800/-. Exbt. A4 is pendrive with call recording of the complainant with the Realme Service Support and Manager & Service Centre.

4. The issues came up for consideration in this case are as follows.

1. Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
2. If so, reliefs and costs?

For the sake of convenience we have considered issues No. (1) and (2) together.

The complainant had purchased the phone on 18/12/2021. At the warranty period itself the phone had screen cover leakage problem and the phone was handed over to the service centre on 16/11/2022. The complainant had tried to contact the customer care of the Realme regarding the issue several times. The opposite party denied the warranty stating that they will not take back the replaced display due to scratch on it. The complainant also submits that the phone is now at the custody of the service centre of opposite party ie. 1^st opposite party. The complainant states that the cause of the defect is the manufacturing error of the display and not the scratch on it and the opposite party is not ready to provide the necessary service to the complainant.

The complainant states that the product purchased by the complainant is of poor quality. Absence of prompt service during the warranty period indicates the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party.

We have also noticed that eventhough notices sent to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties served they didn’t file their version. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against them. Here the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties. Hence we have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order cited 2017 (4) CPR page 5901NC.

The opposite party has inadequately performed the desired service to the complainant which in turn has caused mental agony and hardships and financial loss to the complainant. Since the phone is under the custody of 1^st opposite party, the complainant had to suffer a lot of difficulties especially due to the non-usage of the phone. The complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of his arguments.

The complainant has sought the following reliefs.

1. Service of the mobile phone including change if display under warranty.
2. Compensation for non-usage of mobile phone and damage to the product in that effect.
3. Compensation for the deficiency in service of the opposite party.

On the basis of the observations made by the Commission issues No. (1) and (2) are found in favour of the complainant and the complaint is allowed and the following orders are hereby passed.

1. The opposite parties shall service the mobile phone to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant including change of display under warranty.
2. The opposite parties shall pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation for the deficiency in service of the opposite parties.
3. The opposite parties shall pay Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant.
4. The liability of the opposite parties shall be jointly and severally.

The opposite parties are liable for the above mentioned directions. They must comply the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If they fail to do so, the amounts ordered in Point (2)  above will attract interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28^th day of June, 2024.

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

V.Ramachandran, Member

Forwarded/By Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s evidence

Exbt. A1:    Realme Service Centre Handover report of the complainant’s phone dated 16/11/2022

Exbt. A2:    Copy of the image of the phone showing the affected parts of the device

Exbt. A3:    Purchase bill of the complainant’s phone

Exbt. A4:    Pendrive with call recording of the complainant with the Realme Service Support and Manager & Service Centre

Opposite party’s evidence

Nil

Assistant Registrar

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 22/2023

Order Date: 28/06/2024