Date of Filing 21.12.2023

                                                                                                             Date of Disposal: 24.04.2024

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                         …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL,                                                                               ……MEMBER-I

               THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.Com., ICWA(Inter), BL.,                                                          …….MEMBER-II

CC.No.05/2024

THIS WEDNESDAY, THE 24^th DAY OF APRIL 2024

Mr.Hemabhushanam,

S/o.Kuppiah,

No.1, Gattu Street,

 Arani Town and Post,

Ponneri Taluk,

Tiruvallur District 601 101.                                                                     ......Complainant.

                                                                      //Vs//       

The Manager,

Authorized Signatory,

Sangeetha Mobiles Private Limited,

No.348, Thiruvottriyur High Road,

Old Washermanpet,

Chennai 600 021.                                                                                   …..Opposite party.

Counsel for the complainant                                       : M/s.R.Karunakaran, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite party                                   : Exparte.

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 05.04.2024 in the presence of M/s.R.Karunakaran, counsel for the complainant and opposite party were set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of complainant’s side this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY Tmt. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party in selling the defective product along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to provide a brand new cell phone or to return the cost of the mobile phone, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. It was the case of the complainant that he had purchased a CO1 Plus 2GB Grey-Nokia Cell Phone in the opposite party’s mobile shop for Rs.6,015/- at Chennai on 06.07.2023.  On the same day when started using the mobile phone it was not working properly.  On 24.07.2023 on his next visit to Chennai he approached the opposite party and returned the mobile phone in the shop and explained the trouble he got.  The Manager received the phone with original box and other accessories and said that they would service it and return to the complainant very soon. Finally on 07.08.2023 the opposite party handed over the phone to the complainant.  The complainant explained him about the problem wherein opposite party told that it was a software problem but cleared and serviced.  The complainant felt uneasy to receive the phone as the same problem may occur again and he would be in trouble.  So the complainant asked for the service report of the problems that were rectified but the opposite party did not produce the service report. Complainant requested the opposite party that he did not want any repayment of money paid but to give a new phone and if it costs more, the complainant was ready to pay the extra amount also. But the opposite party bluntly refused the request of the complainant. The opposite party could not deny its responsibility saying that it was a manufacturing defect because the opposite party mobile shop was a reputed shop with advertisements in all types of media and earning and gaining money by selling cell phone. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite party the present complaint was filed for the reliefs as mentioned above.

3. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed along with documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A5. Though notice was served to the opposite party he did not appear before this Commission to file any written version within the mandatory period as per the statute and hence the opposite party was called and set exparte on 21.02.2024. 

Points for consideration:-

1) Whether the alleged deficiency in service against the opposite party proved successfully by complainant by admissible evidence?

2) If so, to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

4. The written arguments to be treated as oral arguments of the complainant as per the endorsement made by them. Hence the same was considered as oral argument for deciding the complaint along with other pleadings and materials.

5. On perusal of the pleadings and material evidences produced by the complainant, it is found that though a manufacturing defect was suspected and alleged in the product (CO1 Plus 2GB Grey Nokia Cell Phone) the manufacturer was not made a party to the complaint.  The opposite party was only the seller who could not be questioned about the manufacturing defect in the product.  In this contest the contention of the complainant that opposite party being a reputed shop with advertisement in all the types of media and earning and gaining money by selling cell phone hence, legally and perfectly responsible for the same could not be said to be a valid excuse for not joining the manufacturer as a party to the proceeding.

6. As the complainant had approached only the seller and not the Service Centre, he could not demand the Service Report from the opposite party.  It was the complainant’s own statement that the opposite party told that the phone was sent to Nokia Service Centre.  Therefore, non issuance of service report by the opposite party could not be found fault with and could not be termed as deficiency in service.

7. The complainant ought to have received the phone from the opposite party to check whether the phone was repaired to his satisfaction perfectly.  Without taking delivery of the phone making allegations “that not receiving the brand new repaired phone, returned with empty hands and got hurt by the activities of the opposite party towards a customer amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service” could not be entertained.

8. Further even as per the terms and conditions found in the invoice it has been stated that “Goods once sold will not be taken back/ replaced/returned.” Therefore, in the above circumstances we could not find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the opposite party and as against the complainant. Merely for the reason that the opposite party did not appear, the complaint could not be allowed when the consumer/complainant failed to discharge their burden of proof.

Point No.2:-

9. As we have held above that the complainant failed to prove that the opposite party had committed any deficiency in service, he is not entitled to any relief from the opposite party.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

            Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 24^th day of April 2024.

         -Sd-                                              -Sd-                                                              -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                    MEMBER-I                                                  PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

     -Sd-                                                          -Sd-                                                      -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                           MEMBER-I                                           PRESIDENT