SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER
The complainant has filed this complaint under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019,seeking direction against OP to pay Rs.36,000/-, the purchase price of mobile phone to the complainant.
Complaint in brief :-
On 17/9/2022, the complainant had purchased a mobile phone worth Rs.36,000/- from OP and the complainant used the said phone for 6 months without any issue. After 6 months of usage, the display of said phone started to blink and this was addressed to OP and simultaneously the company executive through OP and they intimated that it was not an issue but unfortunately the very next day the complainant’s phone switched off completely and this was also intimated to OP and got the reply to pay Rs.3000/- to replace the board and also replied that the success rate cannot be assured. The complainant suffered hardship in using his mobile phone worth Rs.36,000/- and failed to get any kind of service from OP and hence this complaint.
After filing the complaint, notice issued to OP. The OP received the notice and not appeared before the commission and not filed any version . The commission had to hold that the OP has no version as such this case came to be proceed against the OP is set exparte.
Even though, the OP has remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegation made by him against the OP. Hence the complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents. Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce his affidavit and 2 documents marked as Exts.A1 and A2 along with the alleged mobile phone marked as MO1. MO1 was returned to the complainant. The complainant was examined as PW1. So the OP remains absent in this case. At the end the commission heard the case on merit.
Let us have a clear glance at the relevant documents of the complainant. On the perusal of Ext.A1, it is apparent that the mobile was purchased on 17/9/2022 worth Rs.36,000/- from OP. This exhibits goes in tune with the averment made by the complainant. According to Ext.A2 the warranty available for one year from the date of purchase. As per the complaint, complainant alleged that product become defective within 6 months of purchase and on 23/9/2023 an email was sent to company. But no copy of such email produced even though it was sent by OP. Moreover, no service card or job sheet was produced before the commission to substantiate the evidence regarding defect arise within warranty period. Furthermore, the complaint was filed before the commission regarding the deficiency in service, is after 1 ½ years of the defect arised. Eventhough, the complainant failed to substantiate that defect arise within warranty period, he produced MO1 before the commission and on the perusal , the display seems to be defective. The OP has fair chance to conduct the case but the OP choose to be exparte. Hence, the commission came into a conclusion that the complainant suffered deficiency in service eventhough he failed to prove that defect arise within warranty period, the complainant is entitled to get the deficiency cured of free of cost.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed to cure the defect of mobile phone of free of cost within one month from the date of order. In default, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.36,000/- towards the price of mobile phone. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and cost of litigation. After paying Rs.36,000/-, the opposite party is at liberty to take back the MO1 from the complainant. If the opposite party fails to comply the order, complainant is at liberty to file execution application against opposite party as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts:
A1- Purchase bill
A2- warranty card
MO1- mobile phone(returned to complainant)
PW1-Ibrahimkutty .M- complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
