This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Gollapudi Rama Rao, Advocate for 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 order;

O  R  D  E  R

(Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, FAC President)

          This Complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is the resident of VDO’s Colony, Khammam and she has purchased Nokia Mobile Phone, Model No.630bs vide its IMEI No.355768063076122, Battery SI No.49554043862603054100670649, Charger Sl.No.0675631 on 22-10-2014 for Rs.11,001/- vide cash receipt No.90, dt.22-10-2014 from the opposite party No.1, and the warranty period of mobile phone is one year.  The complainant submitted that the cell phone was worked good for 1^st two days, that on 25-10-2014 as the mobile phone started giving problems such operating systems and some other functions are not working as such the complainant approached the opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.1 made some repair and returned the phone to the complainant but even then it is not functioning, again approached the opposite party no.1 showing that the mobile set is not functioning with problems as 1) some options not displayed 2) automatically switched off 3) Not charging 4) Wify not connected 5) net is not connecting 6) switch off even while speaking 7) sensor problem 8) Head set problem 9) display problem, immediately the complainant informed the same to the opposite party No.1 and on the advice of opposite party No.1 the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on the same day i.e. on 04-11-2014 service centre in Khammam for the above problems.  After handed over the phone set as per the request of opposite party No.2 the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 service centre, after 15 days and requested to handover the repaired mobile set, on that the opposite party No.2 asked the complainant to come after 15 days stating that the mobile is sent to company office.  The complainant further submitted that the complainant in such manner number of times visited the service centre of opposite party No.2 and at last on 18-12-2014 the mobile was returned to the complainant.  The complainant also submitted that the mobile is giving problems, on 22-12-2014 without function in a proper manner with the same problems as stated above, for that the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and on his advice the complainant approached the opposite party No.2, but the opposite party No.2 gave careless response and asked the complainant to go Delhi and consult the opposite party No.3.  The complainant further submitted that she is an Engineering student due to non working of her handset she is unable to communicate with her co-students and parents for which she is suffering lot of mental agony, which caused so much loss in her education prosperity.  Vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties the complainant got issued legal and the same were acknowledged by the opposite parties, but even then also the opposite parties neither respond nor give reply as such the complainant filed this complaint.

3.      On behalf of the complainant the following documents were filed and marked as Exhibits A1 to A3.

Ex.A1:-Cash bill for Rs.11,001/- dt.22-10-2014 issued by opposite party no.1

Ex.A2:-Job Sheet No.1914, dt.04-11-2014 issued by opposite party No.2.

Ex.A3:-Office copy of the legal notice, along with postal receipts (3 Nos.) and Acknowledgments (2 Nos).

4.       On receipt of the notice, the opposite party No.1 to 3 failed to appear before this Forum to contest the case and no documents are filed. 

5.       Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the point that arose for consideration are,

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?
2. To what relief?

Point No.1:-

          In this case the complainant purchased Nokia mobile phone from the opposite party No.1 for an amount of Rs.11,001/- on 22-10-2014.  The first two days the mobile phone was good in function and that on 25-10-2014 as it starts giving problem in software.  Immediately the complainant informed the same to the opposite party No.1 and on the advice of opposite party No.1, she approached the opposite party No.2.  At the request of opposite party No.2 service centre the complainant handed over the mobile set to the opposite party No.2 and at their request she approached the opposite party service centre after 15 days, again opposite party no.2 requested the complainant to come after 15 days, at last on 18-12-2014 the mobile is returned to the complainant.  According to the complainant the mobile is giving problems on 22-12-2014 without functioning in proper manner with the same problems as such the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and requested to rectify the problem permanently or otherwise replace the same with new one.  But the opposite parties failed to rectify the problem permanently.  As such the complainant approached the forum for redressal.

          That as per the complainant, when the mobile starts giving problems in software, immediately she informed the same to the opposite party no.1, on the advice of opposite party no.1, complainant approached the opposite party no.2 service station at Khammam.  The service centre i.e. the opposite party no.2 collected the handset and stating this mobile is sent to company head office for rectifying the problems in the handset.  After that the opposite party no.2 failed to rectify the problem, for that the complainant got issued notice and the same was acknowledged by opposite parties No.1 & 2.  Even after acknowledging the legal notice the opposite parties failed to rectify the problems of the handset.  From the above we observed that the mobile having manufacturing defect particularly with regard to software and having other problems.  But the opposite parties No.1 to 3 failed to rectify the same and also we observed that the opposite parties No.1 to 3 failed to produce any evidence to disprove the contention of the complainant.  From the above we observed that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 as such this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant. 

Point No.2:-

          In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties no.1 to 3, to replace the mobile with new one or to refund the cost of the mobile i.e. Rs.11,001/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand and One only) to the complainant within one month failing which the amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of receipt of this order and further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) towards damages and costs of the litigation. 

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

Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party

                Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam