Kerala

Kannur

CC/120/2021

Aneesh Kumar.K.V - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung Smart Cafe - Opp.Party(s)

28 Sep 2021

ORDER

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KANNUR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/120/2021
( Date of Filing : 25 Jun 2021 )
 
1. Aneesh Kumar.K.V
S/o Kannan.C.P,Cheriya Pathiya Veettil,Olavilam.P.O,Thalassery Taluk,Kannur-673313.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Samsung Smart Cafe
DIGI Hub,Sahara Centre,AVK Nair Road,Thalassery.P.O,Thalassery Taluk,Kannur-670101.
2. Samsung Authorised Service Centre,
632G-Roopasree Arcade Near ICICI Bank,M.M.Road,Thalassery.P.O,Thalassery Taluk,Kannur-670101.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. RAVI SUSHA PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Moly Kutty Mathew MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Sajeesh. K.P MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 28 Sep 2021
Final Order / Judgement

SRI. SAJEESH.K.P     : MEMBER

 

    The  Complainant has  filed this complaint  under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the  OPs  to give a new Samsung mobile phone and to pay an amount of Rs.25000/- as compensation to the complainant.

     The complainant had purchased a Samsung mobile phone worth Rs.17500/- from 1st opposite party.  At the time of purchase 1st OP assured proper service.  But after 4 days of  purchase, complainant approached 1st OP due to solve defects of newly purchased phone.  The 1st opposite party repaired the mobile phone and told that the defect was related to network service.  But after that mobile become completely switched off.  The complainant approached 2nd OP on 28/8/2020 and  they rectified the defect which last only to a few days.  On 3/9/2020 again complainant approached 2nd opposite party to cure the defect and 2nd OP kept the devices with them by saying that the board of the device was complaint.  After that the complainant never get his mobile back even if he demanded it for several times.  Thereafter complainant constrained to sent a lawyer notice on 13/10/2021 but it was  un answered.  Hence this complaint.

   After filing the complaint, notice was issued to both opposite parties.  Opposite parties are received the notice and not appeared before the commission and not filed any version.  The commission had to hold that OPs have no version  as such in this case came to be  proceed against the OPs as  exparte. 

         Even though, the opposite parties have  remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegation made by him against the  OPs.  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 along with 4 documents marking them as Exts.A1 to A4 and complainant was examined as PW1.  So the opposite parties are remained 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 Ext.A1 is the photo copy of  the tax invoice  issued by 1st OP dtd.25/7/2020.  Ext.A2 is the copy of lawyer notice issued by complainant to opposite parties dated 13/10/2020.  Ext.A3 is postal receipt.  Et.A4 series  are the acknowledgment card( 2 in numbers.)

      On the perusal of  available documents, it is proved from Ext.A1 that  complainant had purchased a  Samsung mobile from  1st OP.  Ext.A2 is the lawyer notice sent by complainant to  both opposite parties demanding the return of mobile  after proper service is the only evidence before the commission to assure that the mobile is not  returned.  Moreover, the opposite parties were set exparte.  The commission had given fair chance  to opposite parties to contest their part.  Due to the absence of any evidence from opposite parties, the commission came into a presumption  that the said mobile is with 2nd opposite party and not returned so far after proper service.  Hence there is a cause of deficiency  in service from the part of both opposite parties.  So the commission came to a conclusion that there is  a deficiency  in service  from the part of both opposite parties and hence  directed to both opposite parties to return the Samsung mobile  phone after proper repair or give a new Samsung mobile to complainant and to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- as the compensation  to complainant  by both opposite parties  are severally and jointly.

         In the result complaint is allowed in part. The  opposite parties are   severally and jointly  return the Sam sung  mobile phone after proper repair or give a new  Samsung mobile to complainant and to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- as the compensation  to complainant  within  30 days from the date of  receipt  of this order,   failing which the   complainant shall be  at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts

A1-Tax invoice  dtd.25/7/2020

A2- Copy of lawyer notice dtd.13/10/2020

A3- postal receipt

A4(series) Acknowledgment cards(2 in No.)

Sd/                                                                             Sd/                                                                        Sd/

PRESIDENT                                               MEMBER                                                        MEMBER

Ravi Susha                      Molykutty Mathew.                               Sajeesh K.P

eva         

                                                   /Forwarded by Order/

 

 

                                                    SENIOR  SUPERINTENDENT

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. RAVI SUSHA]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Moly Kutty Mathew]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sajeesh. K.P]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.