BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA YSR DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Friday, 20th June 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 26/ 2013
Sri S. Jakeer Hussain, age 22 years,
S/o M.A. Rasool, D.No. 57/434-6-1,
Akkayapalli, Kadapa – 516 001,
YSR District. Complainant.
Vs.
1) The Manager, BIG C Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.,
D.No. 4/487, Kotireddy Street, Nagarajupet,
Kadapa, Y.S.R. District.
2) The Manager, Celikon Impex Pvt. Ltd., Q2 1st floor,
Cyber Towers, Hi-Tech City, Hyderabad – 500 081. Respondents.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 17-6-2014 in the presence of complainant as in person and R1 appeared as in person and R2 called absent and set exparte on 9-5-2014 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, President FAC),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant purchased cell phone from BIG C mobiles, Kadapa on 25-4-2012 for Rs. 2,200/- with bill No. 0995635. The model of the cell phone is C5050. After purchasing the cell phone it was not working properly, the touch screen system was not working after the purchase. The light and cell phone memory card was giving more troubles. The R1 made one servicing to the cell phone, after somany requests about the troubles. But after servicing also the cell phone was giving troubles. The cell phone servicing shop was always closed, when the complaint went there. The complainant asked about the servicing center there is no response from R1. The R1 was not responded properly. The cell phone was given much troubles to the complainant. The complainant is residing at Akkayapalli, but the servicing center was situated at Chennur Bus stand, Kadapa, whenever the complainant went to the servicing center it was always closed.
3. After so many times, one day the complainant had shown the mobile at the servicing center, the servicing center people asked him to keep the mobile for 20 days for repair, otherwise the complainant can go anywhere and make it repaired. Again the complainant went to the R1 and told them about the problem and troubles of the mobile phone and asked new mobile in the place of defective mobile. For the same the R1 replied that they will be provide service only and they did not give new mobile. Then the complainant keep the defective mobile with him. The complainant is an un-employee and they could not able to spent much money for the repairs of the cell phone. The servicing center people was not responded properly and giving negligent replies. The cell phone was purchased at R1 shop which is situated at Kadapa town. So the complaint comes under the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble forum.
4. It is submitted that the complainant approached this Hon’ble forum to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to pay Rs. 2,200/- towards cost of the cell phone or new mobile in place of defective mobile, (ii) to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and caused due to defective cell phone and (iii) to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
5. The R1 filed written version. The R2 called absent and set exparte on 9-5-2014.
6. The respondents denied all the allegations made there under as absolutely false, untenable except those which are specifically admitted hereunder.
7. It is humbly submited that at the time of purchase itself the complainant was given full particulars of the warranty issued by the manufacturer of Celkon C 5050 mobile phone. After accepting the warranty terms and conditions only the above said mobile phone was purchased by the complainant without any demur and the entire allegations which are in contradictions to the averments are hereby denied as absolutely false and that they are invented for the purpose of this complaint.
8. It is submitted that the cost of the mobile phone i.e. Celkon C 5050 purchased by the complainant is only Rs. 2,095/- as alleged. The bill amount is inclusive of VAT (value added Tax) @ 5% on the value of the mobile phone and that it is a statutory tax payable to the state and this O.P.1 has got nothing to do with the same.
9. It is true that the complainant purchased the mobile phone on 25th April 2012 but the allegations made in the complaint that complainant approached R1 for repair of mobile phone is absolutely false and invented for the purpose of this complaint. Hence, the O.P. 1 has no knowledge of the mobile phone problem till receive of the undated notice from the customer. As per the postal receipt filed by the customer before this Hon’ble forum the notice date is understood as 19-3-2013.
10. It is submitted that upon receiving the undated notice from the complainant immediately I have informed him to approach the Celkon authorized service center. It is evidence from the complaint that the complainant intentionally avoided to mention the dates when he approached the authorized service center for his Celkon mobile repair. Complainant makes false allegations with a view to extract more monies from R1 in the event of succeeding in the present complaint. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
11. On a bare perusal of the complaint and the documents filed in support of the same it is clearly evident that the complainant, though stated that touch screen, light and memory card problems but failed to plead the specific problems that arose in the touch screen and memory card and also failed to file any documents corroborating his allegations. From the averments in the complaint itself it is evident that the complainant used the mobile phone without any defects for more than 10 months from the date of purchase. Touch screen and light are most sensitive parts in a mobile phone, it is an electronic visual display that the user can control it through simple or multi touch gesture by touching the screen with one or more fingers. It can get damaged in a number of ways viz., by dropping or sitting on a mobile phone or when the mobile phone is subject to pressure or when it is exposed to extreme heat and cold temperatures or when put in water. The defects alleged by the complainant might have been caused due to physical damages to the mobile phone or negligent acts of the complainant for which the warranty does not apply. Either the manufacturer or the R1 cannot be held responsible for the defects caused due to physical damage.
12. It is submitted that it is the manufacturer, who provides that warranty for the mobile phones and further authorizes the Authorized service centers to carry out the after sales services / repairs if in case of any defect that arises during warranty period. Manufacturer’s authorized service centers are run by certified engineers / technicians, equipped with genuine spare parts and service equipments. Warranty become void if any 3rd party or retailer carryout the service. It is the manufacturer, who provides the warranty and also reimburses the costs for the repairs. The R1 is only retailer and it is involved in the business of sale of various brand of mobile phone including celkon and that they are no way concerned with its manufacturing units, nor with the warranty provided by the manufacturer.
13. It is further submitted that it is just and necessary that the mobile phone purchased by the complainant may be sent to an expert for proper opinion and that it would clearly expose the hollowness in the case of the complainant. Therefore, these O.P. that this Hon’ble forum may be pleased to send the mobile phone of the complainant for expert opinion as required under section 13 (c) of the C.P. Act. Therefore, prayed this Hon’ble forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint against this O.P. with exemplary costs.
14. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by the complainant?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents?
- To what relief?
15. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A4 were marked.
16. Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is true from the documents filed by the complainant that he had purchased the mobile from R1 for Rs. 2,200/- under Ex. A1, dt. 25-4-2012 with bill No. 095635 and cell model C 5050. Ex. A2 is the warranty card without any endorsement. Ex. A3 is the notice issued by the complainant to R1. Ex. A4 is the postal receipt. As per the R1 version the complainant had paid Rs. 2,095.24Ps and @ 5% VAT. Whatever, it may be the complainant had paid Rs. 2,200/- and R1 had issued bill for Rs. 2,200/- towards mobile phone. The R2 was set exparte on 9-5-2014. The 2nd respondent had received notice on 01-2-2014 and was continuously absent in appearing before the Hon’ble Forum, So set exparte. The complainant had went around the servicing center for the troubles of the cell phone. As there were defects in the mobile and the complainant went to servicing center of R1 for repairs. Without any troubles nobody will go to them for many times. The R2 company is the manufacturer and R1 company is retailer both are liable for the defective mobile phone. The complainant had purchased the mobile phone from R1 itself but not form the servicing center. As seen from the evidence produced by the complainant that it is very clear that the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him. There is deficiency of service on the part of R1 & R2.
17. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 2,200/- the cost of the mobile phone (Rupees two thousand and two hundred only) to the complainant, after taking back the defective mobile from the complainant, pay Rs. 2,000/- towards mental agony (Rupees two thousand only) and pay Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards cost of the complaint, to the complainant, within 45 days of date of receipt of orders.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 20th June 2014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 Original bill dt. 25-4-2012 for Rs. 2,200/-.
Ex. A2 Original warranty card issued by the respondent company.
Ex. A3 Letter issued by the ocmplaiannt to the R1 company, dt. 19-3-2013.
Ex. A4 Postal receipt.
Exhibits marked for Respondents: - NIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
- Sri S. Jakeer Hussain, S/o M.A. Rasool, D.No. 57/434- 6-1, Akkayapalli, Kadapa – 516 001,
2. The Manager, BIG C Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., D.No. 4/487,
Kotireddy Street, Nagarajupet, Kadapa, YSR District.
3. The Manager, Celikon Impex Pvt. Ltd., Q2 1st floor,
Cyber Towers, Hi-Tech City, Hyderabad – 500 081
B.V.P.
