BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

                                         C.C.No.20/2017

Dated this the  3^rd day of May 2018

(Date of Institution: 10.07.2017)

Suyachandran, son of Supramani            

No.12, Muthumariamman Koil Street, 

Chinna Kalapet,           

Pondicherry .     

                                                ….     Complainant

Vs.

Sundar

Proprietor

Radnus Mobiles

No.9, 1^st Floor, Anna Salai

Pondicherry – 605 001.

                                                          ….     Opposite Party

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B.,

           MEMBER

Tmt. D. KAVITHA,  B.A., LL.B.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            :  Thiru K.S. Calaivanane, Advocate

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY          :  Exparte

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite party to give a branch new Samsung SM G 7102 mobile phone to the complainant; to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice; to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the loss of contacts and data of the complainant contained in the mobile phone; and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost of this complaint.    

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

The Complainant given his mobile phone Samsung SM G 7102 bearing IMEI No. 359028050936772 to the opposite party on 11.07.2015 for flashing problem which relates to the operating system of the mobile.  The complaint was booked by the staff of the opposite party with customer ID CS 66253806 after testing the mobile phone and collected a sum of Rs.350/- as service charge.  When the complainant went to collect the mobile phone in the evening, the opposite party stated that the they had installed the operating system of another mobile in the complainant's mobile due to which, it became dead and asked for three days time to rectify the defect.  Subsequently, the opposite party kept on delaying every week saying one reason or the other.  On 05.08.2015 the opposite party stated that the mobile could not be repaired due to installation of wrong operating system and assured to rectify the mobile at Chennai or Bangalore, if not rectified, replace with a new one.  Thereafter, whenever the complainant visits the office of the opposite party, they had been dragging the complainant saying that the mobile has been sent to Bangalore or Chennai and finally on 14.10.2015 the opposite party informed that the mobile could not be repaired.  The complainant asked for replacement with a new mobile of same brand, the opposite party offered a new one with very low budget.  The opposite party instead of fixing a simple flashing problem, installed wrong operating system and caused the mobile become dead and unusable.  Therefore, the opposite party is liable for defective and deficiency service.  Further, the act of the opposite party caused mental agony to the complainant.  The complainant sent a legal notice on 27.10.2015 which was acknowledged by the opposite party but he had not chosen to issue any reply.  Hence, this complaint. 

3.       The opposite party remained absent and set exparte.

4.       On the side of the complainant, he has chosen to examine himself as CW.1 and marked Exs.C1 to C4.

5.  Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

6.  Point No.1:

          The complainant handed over his Samsung SM-G7102 mobile phone with the opposite party on 11.07.2015 for rectification of flashing problem in the mobile as per Ex.C1 the job sheet and also paid a sum of Rs.350/- towards service charges as per Ex.C2, the job sheet cum receipt.  Hence, the  complainant is the consumer to the opposite party.

7.       Point No.2:

          The complainant was examined as CW1 and marked Exs.C1 to C4.  The Opposite Parties were duly served, but called absent and set ex parte.  The complainant submitted that he has given his mobile phone Samsung SM-G7102 for flashing problem with the opposite party on 11.07.2015 vide Ex.C1 and also paid a sum of Rs.350/- towards service charges vide Ex.C2.  When he went to receive the mobile phone, the opposite party stated the they had installed the operating system of another mobile due to which his mobile became dead and asked for three days time to rectify the mistake.  However, on 14.7.2015 when the complainant went to receive his mobile phone, the opposite party asked him to come after a week and keep on saying the same on every week for one reason or another.  On 05.08.2015 the opposite party stated that the mobile could not be repaired due to installation of wrong operating system and they would try to rectify the mobile at Chennai or Bangalore, if it could not be rectified, would replace with new one.  On 14.10.2015, i.e. after a period of three months, the opposite party informed that the mobile could not be repaired and offered to replace with new mobile at very low budget.  The complainant alleged that due to installation of wrong operating system, the mobile of the complainant became dead and unusable.  The complainant sent legal notice Ex.C3 dated 26.10.2015 to the opposite party and  the same was acknowledged by the opposite party vide Ex.C4.  Even after receipt of the notice, they did not come forward either to replace the mobile phone or even cared to send any reply.    Hence, the complainant approached to this Forum with this complaint.

8.       From the above facts and evidence adduced by the complainant, it is clear from Ex.C1 job sheet that the complaint alleged mobile phone was handed over to the opposite party for rectification of defect i.e. flashing problem on 11.07.2015 and paid a sum of Rs.350/- as service charges vide Ex.C2.    According to the complainant, the opposite party has agreed to remove the defect i.e., flashing problem.  Instead, the opposite party  had wrongly installed the other mobile phone's operating system, which leads the complainant's cell phone to become dead and the data stored in the hand set were not disappeared.  The negligent Act of the opposite party  would have definitely caused mental agony and monetary loss to the complainant.  The purpose for which the mobile phone problem purchased not served.   Therefore,  the complainant sent a legal notice Ex.C3 dated 26.10.2015  demanding the opposite party to give a new Samsung Grand II SM G 7102 mobile phone and compensation.   The opposite party received Ex.C3 the legal notice dated 26.10.2015 vide Ex.C4, and  failed to give reply for the same.    Further, even after service of notice from this Forum, the opposite party failed to appear or represent the case before this Forum.  In the absence of any rebuttal evidence given by the opposite party, this forum has come to the conclusion that the Complainant has established his case and proved the negligent act which leading to deficiency of service of the Opposite Party.  Thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for and the opposite party is liable for their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

9.       Point No.3:

          In view of the decision taken in point No.2, this complaint is hereby allowed and the Opposite Party is hereby directed to 

1. Give a new Samsung SM G 7102 Mobile phone to the complainant.
2. Pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-  as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings.

Dated this the 3^rd day of May 2018.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER

(D. KAVITHA)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:  

CW.1          10.04.2018           Suyachandran           

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:  Nil

COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS: Nil

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

     MEMBER

(D. KAVITHA)

MEMBER