Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/19/2016

Maddula Vivekananda, son of M.Veerabhadra Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/s. Gionee, M/s. Syntech Technology private Limited, Rep by its Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

N.Sreenivasulu Reddy

24 Jan 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing     :12-01-2016

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:24-01-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Tuesday, this the  24^th day of   January, 2017

 

           Present:  Sri V.C. Gunnaiah, B.Com., M.L., President (FAC)

                          Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu,B.Com., B.L.,LL.M. Member

 

C.C.No.19/2016

 

Maddula Vivekananda, S/o.M. Veerabhadra Rao,

Hindu, Aged about 40 years, Residing at 10/594,

Santhapet, Nellore City.                                                                 ..… Complainant         

                                                                           Vs.

 

1.	GIONEE, Syntech Technology Private Limited, Represented by it’s Managing Director, E-9, Block No.B1, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110 044.,
2.	Vedam (Golden Plaza), Represented by it’s  Branch  Manager,  # 15-5-24, R.R.Street, Anam Circle, Nellore-524 001.
3.	Mobile World, GIONEE SERVICE CENTER, Represented by it’s Branch Manager, Subedarpet, Besides Giri Engineering, Upstairs of Mobile Mart, Nellore-524 001.                                                                     ..…Opposite parties

                                                              .  

            This complaint coming on  23-01-2017  before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri N. Sreenivasulu Reddy, advocate for the complainant and                                               opposite party No.1 remained ex-parte and opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 called  absent and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri V.C. GUNNAIAH, PRESIDENT (FAC)

 

This complainant filed this complaint under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to replace mobile bearing No. E life E7 Mini White with IMIE No.864141020804420  with new mobile with same  features  through  opposite party No.2 or in the alternative direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.17,500/- being the costs of mobile with interest at 18% p.a. from 27-07-2015 till realization, direct  the opposite parties to pay compensation  or damages of Rs.20,000/- and grant costs of the complaint to the complainant.

 

2.         The averments of the complaint in brevity are as follows:

 

                       Complainant purchased a mobile bearing No. E life E7 Mini White with IMIE No.864141020804420 for Rs.17,500/- from opposite party No.2 under cash bill dated 16-01-2015.  The said  mobile worked properly for six months.  Thereafter it did not work  and failed to switch on.  The complainant placed the said mobile before opposite party No.3, who is the service centre of opposite party No.1 for rectifying the defect.  The opposite party No.3 informed that there is defect in the board of the mobile and the same has to be replaced by  sending to manufacturing unit of opposite party No.1 at Delhi.  Then complainant  gave the said mobile to opposite party No.3 on 27-07-2015 under job sheet No.GC15700123994.   Thereafter two days  later, complainant got  a message to his another  mobile No.8985008797 on 30-07-2005 stating that the complaint No. GC15700123994  has been closed and  call phone No.1800-208-1166 for all further enquiries.  But the complainant unable to get the number and nobody lifted the same.   The  opposite party stated that the display of  the mobile has to be replaced with  new one which would be cost of Rs.5,500/-.  At the time of handing over the mobile to the opposite party No.3, there was no breakage  of the display of the mobile, the breakage of the display might have occurred in opposite party’s service centre.  There is warranty for the said mobile for one year  from the date of purchase.  So the opposite party is liable to replace the same with new one.  The complainant caused legal notice on 10-08-2015 to the opposite parties requesting them to handover new mobile with same features and pay the damages but the notice was refused by the opposite party No.2.  Notice sent to opposite party No.1 was returned.  So also the other notice dated 01-11-2015  served on them.  Opposite party No.1 issued reply notice on 12-12-2015 with false averments.  Thus opposite parties objected the complainant to lot of inconvenience  and mental agony.  There is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Therefore,  this complaint against the opposite parties for the above reliefs. 

 

3.         Notices were served on opposite parties 1  and 3 but they remained absent.  Notice sent to opposite party No.2 was refused by him.  So all the opposite parties remained absent and not contested the matter.

 

4.         Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10.

 

5.         Heard the complainant and perused the pleadings,  documents and  the material placed on record by him.

 

6.     The points that arises for determination are:

 

1. Whether  there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2.    Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs  from the opposite    

    parties as prayed?

3.    To what relief?

 

         7.  POINT No.1 and 2:   As already  noted above, the complainant filed his proof affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked  Exs.A1 to A10.  In the  affidavit of complainant, he  reiterated   the averments of the complaint when he purchased the mobile of 1^st opposite party’s company  from opposite party No.2 and how had it failed to work and  how the opposite parties failed to do service to him.  His affidavit clearly and categorically revealed that he purchased the mobile  No.864141020804420 for Rs.17,500/-  from opposite party No.2 under cash bill Ex.A1 on 16-01-2015 and after six months it failed to work and he approached the opposite party No.3 for  rectification of the defect but the defect was not rectified eventhough it was  sent to opposite party No.1  at Delhi and thus there is  manufacturing defect informed by opposite  party No.3 and  the complainant was informed by opposite party No.3 that to replace the display, it costs  Rs.5,500/- and there is warranty from 16-01-2015 till  16-01-2016  i.e., for a period of one year from the date of purchase.  Therefore, the company is liable to replace the mobile with new one with same features and inspite of notice given to opposite parties, they have not replaced the same.  Thus there is deficiency in service. 

 

            8.         The complainant  filed Exs.A1 to A10 to prove the above contents of the affidavit.  Ex.A1 cash bill proved that he purchased the mobile on 16-01-2015 from opposite party No.2.  Ex.A2 job sheet proved that he  handed over the mobile on                 27-07-2015 to opposite party No.3 in good condition of the display and that it is not functioning.  Ex.A3, A4, A5, A6 proved that he issued notices to opposite parties        1 to 3 and Ex.A8 shows that opposite party No.1 issued reply notice but not replaced the mobile or rectified the defect.  As per Ex.A1, there is  twelve months warranty to the hand set unit from the date of purchase.  In this case,  the trouble arose within six months after  the purchase of the mobile phone by the complainant and it was brought to the notice of  opposite parties  through authorized  service centre of opposite party No.1 but still the defect was  not rectified.  So inherently there is  manufacturing  defect of the  mobile sold to the complainant of opposite party  No.1 company sold by opposite party No.2.  In addition, notices given to opposite party Nos.1, 3, they have  not rectified the defect.  The mobile is  still with the opposite party No.3 service centre only.  Therefore, the complainant has made out clear case of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1.  As such, we hold the complainant is entitled for alternative relief as prayed with some damages  and costs though not replacement of mobile phone.  Accordingly, points 1 and 2  are answered in favour of complainant.

 

 

 

9.  TO WHAT RELIEF:  In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.17,500/- (Rupees seventeen thousand five hundred only) being the costs of the mobile and also pay damages at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)   for the inconvenience and mental agony caused to the complainant   and pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this complaint to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.  Failing which, the amount of  Rs.17,500/- (Rupees seventeen thousand and five hundred only) shall carry interest at 9% p.a. till  realisation.

 

            Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  24^th   day of  JANUARY, 2017.

 

              Sd/-                                                                                         Sd/-

           MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT (FAC)

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

23-01-2017

Sri Maddula Vivekananda, S/o.M. Veerabhadra Rao,  Nellore  (Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

-Nil-

 

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -	16-01-2015	Cash Bill for Rs.17,500/- in favour of  complainant  issued by opposite party No.2.
Ex.A2  -	27-07-2015	Photostat copy of  Service Jobsheet in favour of complainant in Job No.GC15700123994.
Ex.A3  -	10-08-2015	Legal notice from  complainant’s advocate to the opposite parties.
Ex.A4  -	-	Returned register post cover from opposite party No.2 alongwith acknowledgement.
Ex.A5  -	-	Returned register post cover from opposite party No.3 alongwith acknowledgement.
Ex.A6  -	01-11-2015	Legal notice from  complainant’s advocate to the opposite parties.
Ex.A7  -	03-11-2017	Served postal acknowledgement from opposite party No.3 sent by  the complainant’s advocate.
Ex.A8  -	12-12-2015	Reply from opposite party No.1 to the complainant and complainant’s advocate.
Ex.A9  -	-	In different dates  messages.
Ex.A10  -	-	Winter  700 MB /  80 MIN Multispeed  C.D.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

-Nil-

 

 

                                                                                                                              Id/-

                                                                                                         PRESIDENT (FAC)

 

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri N. Sreenivasulu Reddy, Advocate, 16-4-214, Gandhi Nagar, Near Sunday Market, Nellore-1 (A.P.)

 

2.	GIONEE, Syntech Technology Private Limited, Represented by it’s Managing Director, E-9, Block No.B1, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,Mathura Road, New Delhi-110 044.,
3.	Vedam (Golden Plaza),Represented by it’s  Branch  Manager,  # 15-5-24, R.R.Street, Anam Circle,Nellore-524 001.
4.	Mobile World, GIONEE SERVICE CENTER, Represented by it’s Branch Manager,Subedarpet, Besides Giri Engineering, Upstairs of Mobile Mart, Nellore-524 001.

 

 

Date when free copy was issued: