DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Tuesday, 21st January 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 40/ 2013
J. Raviteja, its Rep./father
J. Guru Prasada Rao, age 52 years, D.No. 2/565,
Nagarajupet, Kadapa, Cell No. 9885556682. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Proprietor, Nakshtra Mobiles, D.No. 4/723-16,
Janatha Complex, Near Old Bus stand, Kadapa.
2. The Managing Director,
Sony Mobiles Communication (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4th floor,
Dakha House, D.No. 8/17, WEA, Karolbagh,
New Delhi – 110005. ….. Respondents.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 09-01-2014 in the presence of complainant as in person and Respondents called absent and set exparte on 19-7-2013 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per M.V.R. Sharma, Member),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant purchased one mobile phone Sony C-1604 from R1 shop on 11-4-2013 for Rs. 10,950/- and obtained receipt in favour of his son namely J. Raviteja. After purchasing next day the cell was over hearting, when it was charging, talking and searching internet on mobile. The same thing was informed to the R1 on 13-4-2013. But the R1 advised the complainant that it was common and Waite some more days. The problem was not solved. The complainant was informed the same to R1 on 16-4-2013 and the R1 informed the complainant waite for four days and assured the complainant to replace the mobile. Again the complainant asked the R1 on 22-4-213 and the Sales Manager informed the complainant to consult the sony service center and obtain DOA letter, then the R1 replace with new one. Then the complainant asked the service center and they were gave answer to the complainant that the mobile was purchased one week back. So there was no provision to give DOA letter to the complainant. The same thing was informed to the R1 and that they gave evasive replies to the complainant. The complainant approached the Hon’ble forum for seeking relief from the respondents to pay Rs. 10,950/- towards cost of the cell phone, to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of the complaint to the complainant.
3. Notices served to the respondents and the respondents called absent and set exparte on 19-7-2013.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
ii. Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of there Respondents?
iii. To what relief?
5. On behalf of the complainant, PW1 was examined and Ex. A1 to A3 were marked.
6. Point Nos. 1 & 2. As could be seen from the documentary evidence on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased mobile Phone model Sony C-1604, IMEI No. 3555605-23456-8, Battery No. 264265PTPCLH and Charge No. 2913W02409567 from R1, dt. 11-4-2013 for Rs. 10,950/- under Ex.A1. The R1 issued cash bill No. 2052 in favour of Ravi Teja. In Ex. A1 shows that there is warranty with the conditions of the company. After purchasing next day onwards the mobile was heating abnormally while it was kept charging, talking and also working whenever use the mobile phone. It was brought to the notice of R1 on 13-4-2013 and the R1 replied that this smart phones are like that only and also wait for some more days and they have given evasive replies also and also informed the complainant to obtain DOA letter from Customer care. Ex. A2 the Photostat copy of notice from complainant to R1, dt. 23-4-2013. Ex. A3 was Photostat copy of postal receipt. The complainant informed the defect of the mobile phone to the respondents and they have not given any response to the complainant. The complainant vexed with the attitude of the respondents. Thus, the Respondents are liable to pay compensation and there is deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents. Hence, the points are answered accordingly.
7. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the Respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 10,950/- (Ten Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty) cost of the cell phone and to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand) towards mental agony and to pay Rs. 2,000/- (Two Thousand) towards cost of complaint, within 45 days of date of receipt of the orders. The complainant is directed to return the cell phone to R1.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 21st January 2014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant
PW1 J. Guru Prasad Ro, dt. 9-01-2014.
For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 Original Cash bill issued by Nakshtra Mobiles, dt. 11-4-13 for Rs. 10,950/-.
Ex. A2 P/c of notice from complainant to R1, dt. 23-4-2013
Ex. A3 P/c of postal receipt, dt. 23-4-2014.
Exhibits marked for Respondents : - NIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
1) J. Raviteja, its Rep./father
J. Guru Prasada Rao, age 52 years, D.No. 2/565,
Nagarajupet, Kadapa, Cell No. 9885556682.
2) The Proprietor, Nakshtra Mobiles, D.No. 4/723-16,
Janatha Complex, Near Old Bus stand, Kadapa.
3) The Managing Director,
Sony Mobiles Communication (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4th floor,
Dakha House, D.No. 8/17, WEA, Karolbagh,
New Delhi – 110005.
B.V.P.
