SMT. MOLYKUTTY MATHEW  : MEMBER

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the opposite parties to refund the value of mobile phone with compensation and cost of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant   for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.

The case of the complainant in brief

The complainant had purchased OPPO RENO 8T5G MIDNIGHT BLACK OPPO MOBILE phone from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.29,999/- dated 15/02/2023.  At the time of purchasing the mobile phone the manufacturer of OP No.1 offered some attractive offers.  But after one week of the purchase of mobile phone became defective and the complainant approached to OP No.1.  As per the terms of the warranty, the phone became defective within the warranty period the OP No.2 is liable to repair the phone with free of cost.  Then the complainant approached to OP No.2 for repairing the phone on 28/02/2023.  Thereafter so many times the complainant approached before OP No.2. But the technician of OP NO.2 is not repaired the phone.  The complainant had purchased this type of phone only believing the words of OPs.  The non-working of the phone the complainant caused much mental strain for his job.  The complainant again approached to OP No.2 for repairing the phone on 06/03/2023 and 09/03/2023.  Then OP No.2 in his customer service the defect noted as unable to share videos in gallery (while sharing video gallery app automatically close).  Moreover, the handset is under finance lock so unable to complete diagnosis and physical condition of the handset is “Good”.  As per the terms of the warranty, in a warranty period if there is any defect caused in the mobile phone OP No.2 is ready to cure the defects.  But in this case the OPs are not ready to cure the defects of the mobile phone.  The act of OPs the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the complaint.

After filing the complaint notice issued to both OPs.  Both OPs received notice and not appeared before the commission.  The commission had to hold that both OPs are not appeared before the commission and no version filed.  As such this case came to be proceed against the OPs as set ex-parte.

Even though the OPs have remained ex-parte it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by them against the OPs.  Hence the complainant was called up on to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents.  Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 3 documents marking them Ext.A1 to A3 and mobile phone marked as MO1.  The complainant was examined as Pw1.  So the OPs remain 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 tax invoice dated 15/02/2023 for a total amount of Rs.29,999/-.  According to the complainant the OP NO.1 received an amount of Rs.29,999/- from the complainant dated 15/02/2023.  At the time of purchasing the mobile phone the OPs were promised that they will provide prompt service also.  But after one week of purchase of this mobile phone became damaged and OP No.2’s technician noted the phone as per Ext.A2 and A3 but not cured.  Moreover the complainant produced the mobile phone before the commission also.  So the OPs bound to repair the mobile phone on free of cost within the warranty period.  So the OPs are liable to repair the mobile phone with free of cost without delay.  There is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Under this circumstances we are of the considered view that the OPs are directly bound to redressal the grievances caused to the complainant.  So the complainant is entitled to get the value of mobile phone Rs.29,999/- from OP NO.1&2 along with Rs.6,000/- as compensation for mental agony of the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay the value of mobile phone Rs.29,999 to the complainant along with      Rs. 6000/-  as compensation for mental agony of the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs.29,999/- carry 12% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.  Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  After the said proceedings the opposite parties are at liberty to take back the mobile phone (MO1) before the commission.

Exts.

A1- Tax invoice dated 15/02/2023

A2- work order (Customer service) dated 06/03/2022

A3-Work order (customer service) dated 28/03/2023

MO1- Mobile phone

      Sd/                                                                                   Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                  MEMBER                                            MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Assistant Registrar