This C.C. came before us for hearing in the presence of Sri Raneru Kiran Kumar, Advocate for complainant and of Sri Y. Koteswar Rao, Advocate for opposite part No.1; Notice to opposite party No.2 served and called absent; Notice of opposite party No.3 returned/unserved; compliant against opposite party No.3 dismissed; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)
This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that complainant had purchased Nokia Mobile Phone vide model No.2323 from the opposite party no.1 on 09-10-2009 for Rs.2,300/-, the opposite party No.3 is the manufacturer and the opposite party No.2 is the authorized service center of opposite party No.3. The complainant further submitted that after two months from the date of purchase, the mobile phone started giving troubles in the operating system i.e. within the period of warrantee, immediately it was informed to the opposite party No.1 in the month of December 2009. The opposite party No.1 advised to approach the opposite party No.2, upon which, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and handed over the handset to the technician of opposite party No.2, who had observed that the mobile phone has some problem in the main board and also having other problems and advised to kept the mobile phone with them for 10days for rectification of defects and on requests of the complainant, the opposite party No.2 sent the mobile phone to the opposite party No.3 for replacement and advised to come after one month. They could not return the handset even after lapse of 6 months and even did not give proper replies despite making many rounds for about 7 months, due to which, the complainant suffered a lot and alleges that the attitude of opposite parties is amounts to deficiency of service. Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint by claiming the opposite parties No.1 to 3 to replace the Nokia Mobile Phone Model No.2323 with new one or to pay the bill amount of Rs.2,300/- and Rs.50,000/- towards damages and costs.
2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and also filed the following documents, those were marked as Exhibits.
Ex.A1:- Bill No.54, dt.09-10-2009 for Rs.2300/- .
Ex.A2:- User guide of Nokia 2323 Classic.
3. On receipt of notice, the opposite partyNo.1 appeared through its counsel and filed counter. The opposite party No.2 is called absent. The complaint against the opposite party No.3 is dismissed as the complainant failed to furnish the correct address of opposite party No.3 even after granting sufficient adjournments.
4. In the counter, the opposite party No.1 denied all the averments of the complaint by submitting that the opposite party No.1 has no knowledge about the problem of cell phone of the complainant and the opposite party No.1 is not at all concerned to replace the cell phone with new one, the only duty of the opposite party No.1 is to deliver the mobile phone in good condition. The opposite party No.3 is the manufacturer of Nokia Mobile Phones and providing services to its consumers through its service centers. Therefore, the opposite party No.3 is only liable to provide proper services or replace the defective mobile and as such there is no liability and deficiency of service on its part and prayed to dismiss the complaint against the opposite party No.1.
5. Both the parties filed written arguments by reiterating the same averments as mentioned in the complaint and counter.
6. In view of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,
Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief
as prayed for?
Point:-
According to the above facts and circumstances and the material on record, it is a fact that the complainant had purchased the Nokia Mobile phone 2323 for an amount of Rs.2300/- from the opposite party No.1 on 09-10-2009 with a warrantee of one year from the date of purchase, first two months, the mobile phone worked properly and after that started giving problems in the operating system, after noticing the same, the complainant surrendered the said mobile phone to the technician of opposite party No.2 for rectification of defects and requested to either rectify the problems or replace the defective peace with new one. The opposite party No.2 failed to return the same as assured, after making many requests and repeated rounds, the opposite party No.2 sent the defective peace to the opposite party No.3 for replacement. But there is no response from the opposite party No.3 even after completion of 7 months from the date of surrendering the cell phone to the opposite party No.2. On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 denied all the averments of the complaint as there is no deficiency of service on its part and prayed to dismiss the complaint. To prove his averments, the complainant placed Exs.A1 & A2, Ex.A1 is the cash bill and A2 is the user guide, except Ex.A1 & A2 nothing could be filed by the complainant regarding the manufacturing defects and could not taken any steps to prove his case in respect of defects in the cell phone as alleged and also failed to file any job card in this respect and as such this Forum opined that the mere allegations are not sufficient to come to the conclusion and we cannot ascertain the defects without any material on record. Moreover, the complainant did not furnish the correct address of the opposite party No.3, even after granting sufficient time though the opposite party No. 3 is the necessary party to the proceedings being the manufacturer. The opposite party no.1, who sold the cell phone, is neither a proper nor a necessary party to claim for rectification of defects or for replacement of defective piece. In view of the above circumstances, we could not fasten any liability on the part of opposite parties and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 19th day of July, 2013.
FAC President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant and opposite parties:
-None-
Exhibits marked for complainant:- Nil
Ex.A1:- Bill No.54, dt.09-10-2009 for Rs.2300/- .
Ex.A2:- User guide, for Nokia 2323 Classic.
Exhibits marked for opposite party:- - Nil -
FAC President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam
