BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

 F.A.No.1263/2013 against C.C.No.326/2013 District Forum-I, HYDERABAD.

Between:

A.Raghuram S/o.A.Krishna

Age 26, Occupation:Student,

2-3/685/5-1 and 5

Puran Shanti Sheela Homes

Flat NO.310, Police Line

Venkteswara Nagar Colony

Amberpet, Hyderabad-500 013.                                                                 Appellant/complainant.

And

1. UNIVERCELL

Rep. by Branch Manager, Univercell

Head Office, Shop No.3-6-563/B & C

Vishwa Bhawan, Himayatnagar

Hyderabad-500 029.

1. Mirza Majeed Baig

(Incharge Service Centre)

Mobitech Service Center

G-11, Diamond Tower

Opp:Manju Theatre

Beside Taj Tristar Hotel

S.D.Road, Secunderabad-500 003.

1. Micromax House,

Rep. by Manager (Head office Micromax)

697, Udyog Vihar, Phase V,

Gurgaon, Haryana 122 015.                                                                         Respondents/Opp.parties.
 

For the  Appellant: Mr.A.Raghuram, Party in person

Counsel for the Respondents:R1 and R3 served.

                                         Service of notice on R2 held sufficient.

QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT.

AND

SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE,

TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN

Oral Order (As per Hon’ble Sri Justice GopalaKrishna Tamada, President)

***

        The complainant approached the District Forum and raised a dispute in C.C.No.326/2013 U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stating that the mobile phone purchased by him from the first respondent i.e. Univercell is defective and in those circumstances he is entitled for refund of the cost of the mobile together with compensation and costs.

        Though opposite parties  1 and 2 have not chosen to contest the matter,  opposite party No.3, who is the manufacturer, of the said phone filed a memo stating that they are ready to replace the said mobile with a new mobile.

        Having considered the entire evidence on record, i.e. Exs.A1 to A4, the District Forum allowed the said complaint and directed the third respondent to replace the defective mobile phone with a defect free mobile phone of the same make and cost and awarded an amount of Rs.500/- towards costs.

        Being not satisfied with the said order and as the complainant is very particular about refund of the cost of the mobile phone, he approached this Commission and filed the present appeal. 

        Though notices were served on the respondents they have not chosen to appear either in person or through advocate.

        Heard the appellant, party in person.

        From a perusal of the record, it is clear that the appellant purchased the said mobile vide Tax invoice dated 04-8-2012 for a valid consideration of Rs.6,100/- as evidenced by Ex.A1 dated 04-8-2012 and the said phone turned to be defective.  The appellant purchased the said mobile phone on 04-8-2012 and the order was passed by the District Forum on 13-11-2013 i.e. after about one year.  Now the appellant is particular that he does not want any mobile phone and wants only refund of the amount as he bought a new mobile phone during this period.  We find force in the contention of the  appellant and we are of the view that it is desirable that he may be refunded the amount.

        Accordingly this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is modified by directing the respondents to refund the cost of mobile phone as evidenced under Ex.A1 dated 04-8-2012 to the appellant with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of purchase till the date of realization while confirming the costs awarded by the District Forum within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.  There shall be no separate order as to costs.

                                                        Sd/-PRESIDENT.

                                                        Sd/-MEMBER.

JM                                                     Dt.04-6-2014.