IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present:Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH ... PRESIDENT F.A. No.1 of 2023 (Against the Order, dated 08.08.2022, in C.C. No.30 of

2021, on the file of the DCDRC, Nagapattinam)

Orders, dt: 14.02.2025 The Manager, Sangeetha Mobile Private Limited, No.124/587, Public Office Road, Velipalayam, Nagapttinam. … Appellant/Opp. Party Vs.

R.Srinivasan, No.5/1, Anbukudil, Muthmariyamman Vadakku Veethi, Velipalayam, Nagapattinam-611 001. ... Respondent/Complainant For Appellant : M/s.Velmurugan Respondent : Party in person This First Appeal came up for final hearing on 11.12.2024 and, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J. President .

–

The appellant is the Opposite Party in C.C. No.30 of

2021 that was filed by the respondent herein as complainant before the District Commission, Nagapattinam, on the averments that he approached the OP for purchasing a Mobile Phone and the latter had represented to him that the ONEPLUS Nord Model Mobile carries many special features and that it also comes with one year warranty; that the complainant made booking of the said model Mobile Phone by paying a sum of Rs.1000/- as advance on 22.08.2020 and subsequently, upon paying the balance sum of Rs.28,999/- on 23.09.2020, he was given the new handset along with a sale receipt showing the total payment as Rs.29,999/-; that, within one week after its purchase, the handset found to be defective as the audio, Mic. and Bluetooth had gone non-functional, whereupon, driven by great amount of mental agony, the complainant had approached the OP/Seller, who received the handset promising rectification of defects and returned the mobile to him on 14.10.2020, however, the mobile was found to have the same problems, which impelled him to visit the OP once again on 03.11.2020 and, as usual, the complainant was assured rectification, however, when the mobile was returned by the OP on 10.11.2020, it was found to have the same issues, for which, once again, on 17.11.2020, the handset was given to the OP and this time the complainant told the OP that either the phone had to be returned to him fault-free or that he shall have to be provided a new handset; that thereafter, on 07.12.2020, when the handset was returned to the complainant, he found the same issues persisting, which made him to give it back to the OP on 11.12.2020, of course, without any remedy as usual; and that, due to the conduct of the OP in having sold a defective handset and thereafter, not coming forward either to return it repair-free or to replace it with a new one since the instrument was well covered by warranty, he sent a legal notice on 24.12.2020, but in vain and hence, seeking a direction to the OP for issuing a new handset and payment of R.2 lakh as compensation for the sufferings and mental agony endured by him, besides award of litigation expenses, he filed the complaint.

The seller-OP/appellant herein resisted the claim and the main line defence in their written version is, since the issues appears to be owing to manufacturing defect, it is only the Manufacturer or their authorized service centre who alone can remedy the situation and that being so, for the reason that there is a deliberate failure to implead them, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. In their reply notice, dated 30.12.2020, which was sent after the legal notice received from the complainant, he was duly informed that he has to approach only the Manufacturer or their Authorized Service Centre, however, in spite of that, he seeks redressal of his grievance from the OP, who has nothing to do with the issues arising from manufacturing defect and accordingly, they sought for dismissal of the complaint.

After considering the claim and counter-claim as well as the ma