The Manager,Galexy mobile, Kochuveettil Building,
Advocate Lane, Karunagappally 690518.
- Infinix Authorized Service Centre,
SHI, near Canara Bank, Pandalam 689501 : Opposite parties
ORDER
Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
This complaint is filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
The complainant has purchased one Realme C11(2021) from the 2nd opposite party and 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of the Realme mobiles. The said mobile phone C11 was purchased from the 2nd opposite party on 05.04.2022 by paying an amount of Rs.9000/-. There is a full warranty provided for the product from the date of purchase upto 05.04.2023. Within few days of purchase it was noticed by the complainant that, when the complainant uses the mobile phone it shows certain irregularities while using the mobile phone or making calls or using any applications in the mobile, the phone will hang. This situation will continue for a short period and thereafter it will be in a working condition. Another defect of the mobile phone was that without pressing the volume button, the sound will become low when the volume button is again pressed it will again decrease the volume. Moreover when the mobile is used for calling, the call will be in irregular manner, the other side person cannot hear the speech of the complainant. Most of the time when persons make calls to the complainant he is unable to hear the calls. Thereafter such calls will remain as missed calls. In the circumstances complainant approached the 3rd opposite party the authorized service centre of the Realme Infinix service centre, Pandalam and handed over the mobile phone to them. On January 2023 and February 2023 the mobile phone was entrusted for service and the first two times they had checked the software and returned to the complainant on the same day itself. When the complainant entrusted the mobile phone on the 3rd occasion, they had kept mobile phone for a period of 25 days and they told the complainant they had replaced the motherboard and a new one was installed in the mobile. Thereafter for a period of 7 days, the mobile phone did not show any complaints. After 7 days, the mobile phone had shown the same previous complaints so the complainant handed over the mobile phone to the authorized service centre. At that time they had advised the complainant to install a new SIM card and to notice that whether there is any complaint in the mobile phone. If so any complaints persist they advised to record a video and to whatsapp it to the service centre. They also told that the video should be a fully coverage video. Complainant has done the same and send to the 3rd opposite party service centre. But they had not responded to the same. Thereafter complainant has contacted the 3rd opposite party and reported about the complaints. But the defect of the mobile had persisted and complainant lost the trust of the 3rd opposite party. Thereafter complainant has contacted the 1st opposite party the manufacturer of the mobile phone and intimated the matter along with the video taken by the complainant. Thereafter on 13.03.2023 complainant has sent a complaint by post with the acknowledgment card to the 1st opposite party manufacturing company to redress the grievance within 15 days or else he would approach the Consumer Court. The 3rd opposite party had received the complaint on 16.03.2023 but there was no response from the part of the 3rd opposite party. The mobile phone became defective within the warranty period. Complainant had to face much hardships and financial loss by visiting the service centre several times. The opposite party had acted in most negligent manner while dealing with the complaint of the complainant and she had suffered loss and injury and hence entitled to compensation. The opposite parties did not provide a definite solution to the grievance of the complainant. The opposite parties have not complied with the terms of the warranty and have acted extreme negligently and she was not able to use the set comfortably till date and had been under great mental pressure. Hence the complaint.
1st opposite party filed an email communication stating that the feedback of the complainant is very important and they are always working on improving their service and they had provided a questionnaire and requested 1 and 2 minutes and to click the link to feedback the feelings of the complainant thereby the 1st opposite party can better understand the complainant’s needs and also they requested if the complainant’s problem is not solved then the complainant can reply through email.
3rd opposite party filed the version resisting the averments in the complaint. That it is true that complainant had purchased a mobile phone from the 2nd opposite party manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The complainant approached 3rd opposite party with phone claiming it was malfunctioning. However the issues did not occur regularly, but only occasionally and the 3rd opposite party rectified the same. Since the complainant approached with the same problem again, the 3rd opposite party informed the 1st opposite party. As per the instruction of the 1st opposite party their technical team replaced the most important part of the mobile phone the main board/motherboard with a new one. Thereafter 3rd opposite party counterchecked the mobile phone and satisfied with the smooth functioning of the mobile. Thereafter the complainant again approached the 3rd opposite party with the same issues. Then the 3rd opposite party instructed the complainant to send video recording. But thereafter the complainant did not approach the 3rd opposite party. The main allegation of the complainant is the motherboard determines the IMEI number and in this case replacement of mainboard with a new one there will be difference in number so in this case the IMEI number is changed. The 3rd opposite party had properly informed the complainant about the work they had done including the replacement of the mainboard. Due to lack of technical knowledge the complainant is raising suspicions to resolve these problems. The complainant can approach mobile phone technician, engineer or experts in this field. The 3rd opposite party merely a franchisee authorized by the 1st opposite party to provide service to their customers and woks of the 3rd opposite party follows the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). So the 3rd opposite party has no authority to interfere in any other matters of the 1st opposite party. In the circumstances the 3rd opposite party is helpless to satisfy the requirements of the complainant and further contends to dispose of the complaint in accordance with their version.
In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether the mobile handset purchased from the 2nd opposite party is having any manufacturing defect so as to get it replaced by a new one?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation
- Reliefs and costs.
Evidence on the side of the complainant consist of chief affidavit swearing that whatever stated in the complaint and affidavit are true and correct and marked Exhibit P1 to P5 documents. 1st opposite party filed an email communication reply to the complainant 3rd opposite party filed detailed version. The notice issued from the Commission is seen delivered to the 2nd opposite party on 12.01.2024. 2nd opposite party was called absent no representation and no version filed. Hence 2nd opposite party was set exparte.
The specific case of the complainant is that she had purchased a Realmi C11 mobile for Rs.9,000/- from the 2nd opposite party. It is clear from the Exhibit P1 bill of supply about the warranty condition for a period of one year. While using the mobile it was malfunctioning. The complainant had approached the 3rd opposite party with mobile to rectify the mobile phone purchased by her on 05.04.2022 for Rs.9,000/- manufactured by the 3rd opposite party which is malfunctioning.
The specific case of the complainant is that she had approached the 3rd opposite party to rectify the mobile phone purchased by her on 05.04.2022 for Rs.9,000/- which is now malfunctioning. The said mobile phone was manufactured by the 1st opposite party and sold by 2nd opposite party and service done by 3rd opposite party. It is clear from the Exhibit P1 bill of supply about the warranty conditions for a period of one year. While using the mobile phone it had showed serious defects like in the course of making calls it gets struck condition and thereafter it will be in a normal condition. Moreover the volume of the phone fluctuates without pressing the volume button. The complainant has approached Realme authorized show room the 3rd opposite party, several times and they had checked the software and rectified the same and gave back the mobile to the complainant. Thereafter also the mobile phone was in a defective condition. The complainant again approached the 3rd opposite party. At that time they had replaced the mother board of the mobile phone and returned to the complainant. Thereafter the mobile was again in a defective condition after a period of 7 days that was also not rectified by the opposite parties. In the circumstances complainant had forwarded a letter on 13.03.2023 to redress her grievances by rectifying the mobile as soon as possible by the opposite parties. But it was in vain.
Complainant is a poor lady who approached the service centre with the malfunctioning of the equipment three times. The technical team of the Realmi company had replaced the major part of the mobile phone ie. mother board yet the defect of the mobile set was not resolved. The 1st opposite party has a prime role in rectifying the defect of the mobile as they are the manufacturing company. From the email communication send by them it is evident that they had not shown much interest in resolving the grievance of the complainant. The email communication itself is in an evasive manner by providing a link. Thereafter also the grievance of the complainant was not solved. It is true that when the motherboard of the mobile phone is replaced by a new one , the IMEI number will be changing and a new number will come into existence. It is pertinent to note that the motherboard is the most important component in a mobile phone and it was replaced since the defect of the mobile phone persisted. However 3rd opposite party contends that they are franchisee only, authorized by the 1st opposite party to provide service to their customers. It is an established fact that in our country all of the multinational and corporate companies are having dealers, sub dealers and franchisee. Thought the 3rd opposite party contends they are the franchisee only at the same time 3rd opposite party is a service provider and hence they cannot escape from their obligation.
It is pertinent to note that, complainant has approached the authorized service centre of the Realme at least three times. The opposite parties returned the mobile phone and told they had rectified all the defects but the same defects persisted. It is pertinent to note that the mobile phone purchased by the complainant became defective within the warranty period and that was handed over to the opposite party within the warranty period for curing the defects. But they failed to rectify the defects of the mobile phone. So it is clear from this that there is deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties. It is an established fact that the opposite parties had an obligation to keep the mobile phone in a perfect condition at least for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase by the complainant which they failed to do so. It is an admitted fact that now a days mobile phone is the integral part of the daily life style, it serves various purposes and services that have made our lives easier and more convenient. Most of the crucial details regarding a person are interlinked with his/her mobile phone. When inconvenience is caused to the frequent use of the mobile phone it will affect the routine affairs of the person to a great extent and with the advancements in technology mobile phones have evolved to offer a wide range of features. Here complainant also is in the same position which caused monitory loss and mental agony due to the deficiency in service attributed by the opposite parties. The complainant had knocked the doors of opposite parties with the defective mobile set but her grievance was not solved.
The main contention raised by the 3rd opposite party to evade from their responsibility is that they are adopting the Standard Operating Procedure(SOP) directed by the 1st opposite party. They had no bar to produce the documents of the same before the Commission and adduce sufficient evidence by cross examining the complainant effectively. The 1st and 3rd opposite parties failed in this venture. In the circumstances in the absence of cross examination by the opposite parties, the affidavit sworn by the complaint stands unchallenged.
On the basis of uncontroverted testimony of the complainant coupled with Exhibit P1 to P5 documents, it can be safely concluded that the complainant has established her case warranting the grant of relief sought for. Hence we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties had an obligation on their part to prove that there is no manufacturing defect for the product and in its absence we hold the view that the mobile phone had manufacturing defect. It is very pertinent to note that the admitted defect happened during warranty period. Complainant has 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 parties are jointly and severally directed to refund the price of Rs.9,000/- and on receipt of the amount, the complainant shall return the phone in dispute to the 2nd opposite party and that the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and the financial loss caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
- Opposite parties are also directed jointly and severally to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of the proceedings.
- The opposite parties are jointly and severally 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 of Rs.9000+5000+2000(Rs.16000/-) along with the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization from the opposite parties jointly and severally and the complainant can initiate execution proceedings.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt.Minimol S.transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 5th day of November 2024.
Sd/-
STANLY HAROLD
MEMBER
Sd/-
S.K.SREELA
PRESIDENT
Forwarded/by Order
Senior superintendent
INDEX
Witness Examined for the complainant:-Nil
Document marked for the complainant:
Ext.P1 : Bill dated 05.04.2022
Ext.P2 : complaint against Realme C11
Ext.P2(a) : Postal receipt
Ext.P3 : Postal article
Ext.P4 : Mobile phone description
Ext.P5 : Email communication
Witness Examined for the opposite parties:-Nil
Documents marked for opposite parties:-Nil
Sd/-
PRESIDENT