IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JULY 2022
Present: - Smt.S.Sandhya Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member (President in Charge)
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.No.158/2021
Binu Aloysius, aged 46 years,
S/o Aloysius
Residing at Binu Cottage,
Anugraha Nagar 57,
Pallithottam P.O., Kollam 691 006.: Complainant
(By Adv.Maruthadi R.Sreeraj)
V/S
The Manager,
MyG
Madathil Complex, Pallimukku,
Eravipuram, Kollam 691011.:Opposite party
ORDER
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
The complainant is a consumer as per the provisions of the said enacted Act of 2019. He is the proprietor of AB Cable Networks and it is running for his livelihood. The opposite party is a dealer of various types of mobiles and electronic products. The complainant for his personal use on 28.06.2021 approached the opposite party for purchasing a mobile phone having good resolution camera. Thereafter the opposite party made believe the complainant that Nokia Ta-1325 5.4 Ds is which is having high quality camera and insisted to purchase the phone. Believing this the complainant purchased the above mobile phone on 28.06.2021 by paying an amount of Rs.14,630/-(Rupees Fourteen Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Only an amount of Rs.10,000/- is directly paid by the complainant and balance amount is transferred from the account of AB Cable Networks. The IMEI of the phone is 354435470927856. But the opposite party failed to provide the invoice bill and the complainant had questioned the act of the opposite party. Due to this they had shown the invoice details of the phone which was entered in their system. The complainant had no other option than to take the invoice details in the manner of a photo. The act of the opposite party by denying the invoice bill to the complainant is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The mobile phone purchased by the complainant has a warranty of one year. While purchasing the mobile phone the opposite party made the complainant a strong belief that the mobile phone is having high quality camera and a long life. But on the first day of purchase itself of the mobile phone, the complainant realized that the quality of pictures is inferior than assured by the opposite party. Thereafter the complainant contacted the opposite party in order to replace the above phone having high quality camera. The opposite party thereby informed the complainant to produce the mobile phone on 30.06.2021 as 29.06.2021 is a non-working day due to covid 19 restrictions. The complainant had handed over the phone to the opposite party on 30.06.2021 for the purpose of replacing the same. In result to this the opposite party responded to the complainant that they can only provide Rs.6,000/- to the above phone. The act of the opposite party is to deceit the complainant and only to extract money from the complainant which is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of opposite party. In spite of repeated requests for replacing or refund of the cash no positive response from the part of the opposite party. The alleged phone is still in the possession of the opposite party and they had not issued a receipt for receiving the phone. The opposite party have acted in most negligent manner while dealing with the complainant and complainant had suffered loss and injury and entitled to compensation. The opposite party by selling a mobile phone which is having low quality camera to a person who approach opposite party for getting high quality camera phone is clear deficiency in service. The complainant had purchased the phone for availing high quality pictures. But due to the deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party the complainant couldn’t get the expected utility for the product he purchased. Hence the complaint.
Though notice was issued from the Forum/Commission was served to the opposite party. Opposite party failed to appear before the commission nor made any representation hence opposite party set exparte. The complainant filed proof affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 document. Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the records.
Ext.A1 is the print out of the invoice details of the mobile phone dated 28.06.2021 issued by the opposite party.
The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.A1 document would establish primafacie that the complainant had purchased a Nokia Ta-1325 5.4 Ds for getting mobile phone by expecting good quality pictures. Though the complainant had requested the opposite party to provide the invoice bill they evaded from providing the same. The complainant questioned the above act of the opposite party they had shown the invoice details of the phone entered in their system and the complainant had no other option but only to take the photo of the invoice details. The denial of giving bill to the complainant is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. According to the complainant the opposite party at the time of purchasing the said mobile phone made believe the complainant that Nokia Ta-1325 5.4 Ds is having high quality camera and insisted to purchase the same. Thus the complainant purchase the above model phone on 28.06.2021 for Rs.14,630/-(Rupees Fourteen thousand six hundred and thirty only). The opposite party is bound to substitute a brand new mobile phone of same value and high quality camera to the complainant as the phone is an inferior quality having low quality camera. Thereafter the complainant contacted the opposite party for the replace of the above phone with another phone having high resolution camera. The opposite party had informed the complainant to approach them on 30.06.2021. Thereafter the complainant handed over the phone to the opposite party for replacing the same on 30.06.2021. But they failed to fulfill their obligation at the time of purchasing the phone and offered Rs.6,000/- meagre amount for the brand new phone. It is crystal clear from this that the opposite party deceited the complainant only to extract money which amounts serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of opposite party.
It is pertinent to note that by issuing the mobile phone having inferior quality of camera who opted for high quality camera which is in the warranty period the complainant has sustained mental agony and loss.
On evaluating the entire materials available on record we are of the view the mobile phone Nokia Ta-1325 5.4 Ds purchase from the opposite party is a substandard one than illustrated by opposite party which was against the offering of the opposite party at the time of purchase. However the opposite party had failed to replace the same. Thereafter the phone is handed over to the opposite party on 30.06.2021. The opposite party is obliged to give a mobile phone having high quality camera with perfect working condition at least for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase which the opposite party failed to do so. The complainant had made several requests and had knock the door of the opposite party to redress his grievance. The act of the opposite party by selling a mobile phone which is having low quality camera to a person approaching to opposite party for getting high quality camera phone is clear deficiency in service. So we are of the view that the complainant had sustained mental agony apart from financial loss. In the circumstances we are of the view that the complaint is only to be allowed.
In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms.
- The opposite party is directed to substitute a brand new mobile phone having high quality camera to the complainant or to repay its price of Rs.14,630/- and also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
- The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as the costs of the proceedings.
- The opposite party is directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to realize the amount for Rs.14,630/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till
the realization along with the costs from the opposite party and by charging on their assets both movable and immovable.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 15th day of July 2022.
STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-
S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-
(President In Charge)
Forwarded/by Order
Senior superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.A1 : The print out of the invoice details of the mobile phone dated 28.06.2021
issued by the opposite party.
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil
Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil
