Telangana

Khammam

CC/12/2015

Pappula Gopinadh, S/o. Kodandam LateR/o. H.No.6-1-3, Writerbasthy, Yellandu, Khammam District, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Cell World Mobile Phones, Activation Accessories , Service, Wyra Road, Khammam 507 001. Through - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.Gopinath

30 Jul 2015

ORDER

This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of Sri. P. Gopinadh, Advocate / complainant; and the Opposite parties No.1 to 3 served called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

 

O  R  D  E  R

 

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

 

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

 

2.       The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant purchased Celkon Model CT-2 Tablet/Mobile vide IME no.911231150515343 on 08-06-2013 for Rs.6,300/- with pouch on 1 year warranty.  After three months from the date of purchase, it started giving troubles and not functioning properly, it has hanging problem and nothing was displayed except displaying the trade name of the opposite parties, thus, complained the same to the opposite party No.1.  The opposite party No.1 suggested the complainant to approach opposite party No.2 for rectification of problems; accordingly, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and handed over the Tablet.  But it failed to return the same as assured, due to which, the complainant frequently approached the opposite party No.2 from the month of October 2013 till January 2014 on many times.  Thereafter, the opposite party No.2 returned the mobile in the month of February 2014, but after one month the same problems were again arose.  Once again the respondent No.2 rectified the defects and returned the mobile to the complainant, though, the problems were not rectified properly. Vexed with the same, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on 31-05-2014, then, it suggested to send the mobile to the opposite party No.3 for proper services.  Accordingly, the complainant returned back and after that, once again approached the opposite party No.2 on 03-06-2014 to surrender the problematic phone to it, but it refused to receive the Tab from the complainant.  The complainant further submitted that the attitude of opposite party no.2 is amounts to deficiency of service and as such issued legal notice on 02-07-2014, even after receipt of the same, the opposite parties did not respond to give any reply, therefore, filed the present the complaint by alleging the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and prayed to direct them to refund cost of the mobile @ Rs.6,300/- together with interest @18% P.A and Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and Rs.6,000/- towards costs.

 

3.       In support of his case, the complainant filed affidavit and bill dt. 08-06-2013 for Rs.6,300/-, office copy of legal notice dt.02-07-2014 with postal acknowledgments, those were marked as exhibits A1 and A2.

 

 

4.       Despite service, the opposite parties neither appeared nor filed their written version to counter blast the averments of the complaint.

 

5.       In view of above circumstances, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

 

Point:-        

 

According to the above submissions and material on record, it is a fact that the complainant purchased Celkon Model CT-2 Tablet/Mobile on 08-06-2013 from opposite party No.1. with in short period, the Tablet/Mobile started giving troubles, it has hanging problem, not displayed properly, those were repeatedly arose inspite of frequent repairs done by the service centre of opposite parties.  It is also the allegation of the complainant that the opposite parties did not respond properly in providing proper services to rectify the defects or to replace the defective peace with new one within warranty period as assured and they rejected to receive the tablet for repairs within the warranty period.  And even after issuance of legal notice, they did not respond to give reply and as such prayed for redressal by filing the present complaint.  However, the opposite parties failed to appear before this forum till the matter was posted for orders.       

 

In view of above circumstances, we opined that it is sheer negligence on the part of opposite parties.  Rectification of defects is the obligatory duty of the opposite parties if there is any fault or imperfection, it will amounts to unfair trade practice and leads to deficiency of service towards consumers, therefore, the point is safely concluded in favour of the complainant.

 

6.       In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to replace the defective Celkon Model CT-2 Tablet/Mobile vide IME no.911231150515343 with new one or to refund the cost of the mobile at the time of purchase within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @9% per annum till realization.  Further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs

 

           Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 30^th day of July, 2015.

                                                                                        

 

                                                  FAC President               Member      

                                           District Consumer Forum, Khammam

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

 

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party  

       None                                                                             None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

 

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party

   

Ex.A1:-	Bill dt. 08-06-2013 for Rs.6,300/-.
Ex.A2:-	office copy of legal notice dt.02-07-2014 with postal acknowledgments.

 

 

FAC President               Member

     District Consumer Forum, Khammam.