This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.V. Ramana Rao, Advocate for complainant; Opposite party No.1 appeared in person; Notice of opposite party No.2 not returned; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, this forum passed the following:
ORDER
(Per Sri Vijay Kumar, President)
This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased Sony Ericsson Phone, Model No.W395 on 06-03-2010 for Rs.7,499/- vide receipt No.1364556, dt.06-03-2010 from the opposite party No.1. The complainant submitted that the first four months the mobile was good in function after that in August 2010, it started giving problems in display the numbers and in operating system. The complainant informed the same to the opposite party No.1 thereby the opposite party No.1 kept the phone with them, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 to receive the mobile, at that time the opposite party No.1 stated that as the technicians are not available, the problem not rectified. The complainant further submitted that he made requests to the opposite party No.1 to rectify the problem immediately or otherwise replace the mobile phone with new one, but the opposite party failed to respond, as such the complainant approached the Forum for redressal.
2. To support the case the complainant filed the following documents and the same were marked as Exs.A1 to A5.
Ex.A1:- Original Cash bill for Rs.7,499/- issued by opposite party No.1
Ex.A2:- Warranty Certificate of Sony Ericsson Handset.
Ex.A3:- Office Copy of Legal Notice, dt.29-01-2011.
Ex.A4:- Courier receipt.
Ex.A5:- Courier Acknowledgement.
3. On receipt of notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared in person and filed counter. In their counter opposite party No.1 denied all the averments made by the complainant and submitted that when a customer came to their show room with a complaint in a mobile phone, they used to issue job sheet containing the details of the handset like mobile phone make, model, IMEI No., defects in handset with date and time and acknowledges about the complaint but in the present complaint the complainant had not mentioned about the job sheet details, by this it clearly evident that the intention of the complainant is to get the new mobile phone or to get amount. For that they prayed that they are not liable to pay compensation under any head and to dismiss the compliant.
4. On behalf of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant filed a memo to treat the contents of their complaint as their written arguments.
5. While the matter is pending, the opposite party No.1 submitted that they personally contacted the opposite party No.2, as there is no response from opposite party No.2 for settlement.
6. Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the points that arose for consideration are,
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?
- To what relief?
Point No.1:-
In this case, the complainant purchased Sony Ericsson Phone Model No.W395 hand set form opposite party No.1. For the first four months it was good in function and after that from August 2010, it started giving troubles like problem in display the numbers and in operating system. Immediately the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 to rectify the problem. Even after lapse of sufficient time as the opposite party No.1 failed to rectify the problem, the complainant issued legal notice on 29-01-2011, which was acknowledged by opposite party No.1. Even after receiving legal notice, the opposite parties failed to respond, so the complainant approached the Forum. The opposite party No.1 in their counter submitted that only to get new mobile or grab money from them, filed false case and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
From the material available on record and as per the representation made by the opposite party No.1 in person before the Forum on 18-05-2011, we observed that there is no dispute with regard to defect of mobile phone, particularly problem is in display the numbers in operating system. And also opposite party No.1 submitted that they personally contacted the opposite party No.2 for settlement, even though there is no response from opposite party No.2 and also asked some more time for settlement. From the above we observed the mobile phone having defect and the opposite parties failed to rectify the problem of the phone of the complainant even after receiving legal notice from the complainant, the opposite parties failed to give reply and also the failed to rectify the problem of the phone, is nothing but deficiency in service on their part. 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 & 2 to replace and hand over a new mobile or to refund the cost of the mobile phone of Rs.7,499/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Nine only) within one month from the date of this order and further directed to pay Rs.1500/- towards compensation and 500/- towards costs.
Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this 25th day of August 2011.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUEMRS FORUM,
KHAMMAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant:- - None -
Witnesses examined for opposite parties:- None -
Exhibits marked for Complainant:
Ex.A1:- Original Cash bill for Rs.7,499/- issued by opposite party No.1
Ex.A2:- Warranty Certificate of Sony Ericsson Handset.
Ex.A3:- Office Copy of Legal Notice, dt.29-01-2011.
Ex.A4:- Courier receipt.
Ex.A5:- Courier Acknowledgement
Exhibits marked for opposite parties:- -Nil-
PRESIDENT MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM
