Complaint is filed on 20-05-2009
Compliant disposed on 10-11-2010
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM::AT:: KARIMNAGAR
PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI K. DEVI PRASAD, B.Sc., LL.B., PRESIDENT
SMT. E. LAXMI, M.A.,LL.M.,PGDCA (CONSUMER AWARENESS), MEMBER
SRI. K. CHANDRA MOHAN RAO, B.Com., LL.B., MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND TEN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 85 OF 2009
Between:
Sardar Ravinder Singh, S/o. Laxman Singh, Age 44 years, Occ: Advocate, Corporator, Political Leader and President of Bar Association, Karimnagar Bar, R/o. H.No.2-6-58, Sikhwadi, Karimnagar Town.
… Complainant
AND
- Sri VIkas, B.S.I. Customer Relation Centre, H.No.5-9-77, Bala Chapel Road, Hyderabad – 500 001, R/by it’s Head Branch Service-Advice Manager, Vikas Jaiswal.
- New B.Tel Communications, Shop No.2, APSRTC New Bus Station complex, Bus Station Road, Karimnagar, R/by it’s Proprietor.
- Onida Customer Relation Centre, H.No.8-2-40/1, Mukarampura, Karimnagar proper, R/by it’s Proprietor Sri Yousufuddin.
…Opposite Party no.1 to 3
This complaint is coming up before us for final hearing on 02-11-2010, in the presence of Sri C.Vikram Kumar, Advocate for complainant and Sri P.Parameshwar Rao, Advocate for opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.1 & 3 remained exparte, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum passed the following:
:: ORDER ::
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act 1986 seeking direction to the opposite parties to return the said Cell Phone duly repaired or to return it along with costs of the Cell Phone, compensation and costs of the petition.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are the complainant who is in need of Cell Phone purchased F-830-Onida Cell Phone from opposite party no.2 for a consideration of Rs.5,650/- which had a warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase. The complainant has been using the same very carefully. Within two months after its purchase, the CELL Phone, started giving trouble and was not functioning properly as such the complainant approached the opposite party no.3 who is the authorized service center of opposite party no.1 & 2 on the date 16.9.2008 and showed the Cell Phone to the opposite party no.3. After observing the said Cell Phone, opposite party no.3 took the same on 16.9.2008 with an assurance to redeliver the repaired Cell Phone to the complainant within a week time. Believing the opposite party no.3, who is the authorized service person for the F-830 Model Onida Cell Phone, the complainant had handed over the Cell Phone to opposite party no.3. Even after the lapse of said time, the complainant approached opposite party no.2 & 3 with a request to return the Cell Phone duly repaired. But there was no response from them and they went on postponing the same on one or other reason. Then the complainant requested them to return the Cell Phone without repairing it so that he could send it to the manufacturer for its replacement with a new piece as there is still warranty or to get it repaired. Even after this request there was no response from the opposite parties.
3. In the absence of the Cell Phone, the complainant was facing lot of hardship and inconvenience for his day to day communications and the irresponsibility of opposite parties caused lot of mental agony to the complainant which amounts to deficiency of service. As such the complainant got issued Legal Notice to the opposite party no.1 to 3 which was served on opposite parties and the complainant received the Reply Notice on 2.3.2009 without date and signature of any one through which it was informed that the opposite party no.3 was relieved from Onida Center on 30.10.2008. The reply given by the opposite parties is vague, as on the date of handing over of the Cell Phone by the complainant the opposite party no.3 was under the service of opposite party no.1& 2. Therefore, the opposite party no.1 to 3 are liable to answer for the claim, hence filed this complaint.
4. Opposite party no.1 & 3 set exparte.
5. Opposite party no.2 filed his Proof Affidavit admitting the purchase of Cell Phone of F-830 Onida Model and denied the warranty or guarantee for the said Cell Phone given by him neither in oral nor in written. Opposite party no.2 submitted that on its bottom of the Cash Bill there is a clear mention of “the warranty will be provided by the concerned company only”. Opposite party no.2 is only the seller of the said Cell Phones but not responsible for any service. Opposite party no.1 is responsible for the problems or repairs which may occur to the said Cell Phone. Therefore, opposite party no.2 is not liable for the defect of the Cell Phone.
6. The complainant filed his Proof Affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint and filed documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A to 3. Ex.A1 is the Cash Receipt for the purchase of Cell Phone F-830 Onida Model Dt: 28.6.2008 issued by opposite party no.2 for Rs.5,650/-Ex.A2 is the photo copy of Legal Notice by counsel for the complainant addressed to opposite party no.1 to 3 Dt: 10.2.2009. Ex.A3 is the Reply Notice of opposite party no.1 addressed to counsel for complainant and complainant Dt: Nil.
7. No documents are filed on behalf of opposite parties.
8. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, if so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?
9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that he has purchased the Cell Phone from opposite party no.2 and when it started giving trouble he approached opposite party no.2 and complained about the Cell Phone, in turn opposite party no.2 directed him to get it repaired with opposite party no.3 who is the Service Centre of opposite party no.1. Opposite party no.1 is the Onida Company.
10. Opposite party no.1 & 3 were set exparte and opposite party no.2 denied that the complainant complained about the functioning of Cell Phone as such he directed the complainant to approach opposite party no.3.
11. The complainant did not file any documentary proof in support of his claim that first he approached opposite party no.2 and at the instructions of opposite party no.2 he approached opposite party no.3 and handed over the Cell Phone to him for repair. Thus there is no direct evidence to support the claim of the complainant that he approached opposite party no.2.
12. The complainant filed copy of the Legal Notice Dt: 10.2.2009 issued to opposite parties. In the notice issued by the complainant he has stated about the fact of handing over the Cell Phone as it was giving trouble to opposite party no.3 for the repair on 16.9.2008 and opposite party no.3 assured the complainant that he would repair it and redeliver the same within a week. It is the case of the complainant that inspite of several requests made to opposite party no.3, opposite party no.3 failed to hand over the piece. Therefore, he got issued the notice to opposite parties.
13. Opposite party no.1 after receipt of the notice under Ex.A2, replied to it wherein it is stated that they have relieved opposite party no.3 Onida Company Customers Relation Center w.e.f. 30.10.2008. After filing the CC opposite party no.1 did not appear before the Forum as such it was set exparte. Opposite party no.3 neither replied to the notice nor appeared before this Forum on receipt of notice from this Forum in the CC. Therefore, he was also set exparte.
14. From the reply notice sent by opposite party no.1 it is clear that till 30.10.2008 opposite party no.3 was his authorized Customer Relation Center whereas this notice was issued by complainant to opposite parties Dt: 10.2.2009 stating that Cell Phone was handed over to opposite party no.3 on 16.9.2008. That means by the date of handing over Cell Phone opposite party no.3 was authorized Customer Relation Center of opposite party no.1. Therefore, now opposite party no.1 cannot plead that opposite party no.3 is not his authorized Customer Relation Center by the date of handing over the Cell Phone on 16.9.2008. There is no denial from opposite party no.3 that the Cell Phone was handed over to opposite party no.3 on 16.9.2008. Therefore, since there is no document filed to show that opposite party no.2 has directed the complainant to hand over the Cell Phone to opposite party no.3 for repair, opposite party no.2 cannot be made liable to pay either compensation or any direction against opposite party no.2. Opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.3 are liable for the return of the Cell Phone to the complainant as on the date of handing over the Cell Phone, the opposite party no.3 was the authorized Customer Relation Center. Therefore, opposite party no.1 & 3 are liable to pay the cost of the Cell Phone and also compensation.
15. In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party no.1 & 3 to pay the cost of the Cell Phone of Rs.5,650/- and also pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,000/- and costs of Rs.1000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to Stenographer (DUR) and transcribed by her, after correction the orders pronounced by us in the open court this the 10th day of November, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
NO ORAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 is the Cash Receipt for the purchase of Cell Phone F-830 Onida Model Dt: 28.6.2008 issued by opposite party no.2 for Rs.5,650/-
Ex.A2 is the photo copy of Legal Notice by counsel for the complainant addressed to opposite party no.1 to 3 Dt: 10.2.2009.
Ex.A3 is the Reply Notice of opposite party no.1 addressed to counsel for complainant and complainant Dt: Nil.
FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES: -NIL-
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
