This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on  13-03-2012 in the presence of Sri.K.Haranath Raju, advocate for complainant and of Sri. M.V.Subba Rao, advocate for 1^st opposite party, Sri.Ch.J.Vijay Kumar, advocate for 2^nd opposite party, Sri.T.Muralidhar, Advocate for 3^rd opposite party, 4^th opposite party set exparte, upon perusing the material on record after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Smt T. Suneetha, Member:-

The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking directions on the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,100/- the value of KARBONN set Rs.3,000/- value of reliance set and Rs.18,900/- towards monitory loss to the complainant.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

          The complainant purchased a KARBONN KC470CDMA & GSM DUAL SIM mobile phone on 07-03-11 in Navaratna Shopee D.No.5-37-95, 4/13 Brodipet, Guntur.  Suddenly on 14-04-11 the Karbonn Mobile didn’t work.  Immediately the complainant approached the shop keeper and he advised him to contact the service centre, M/s. Subham Communications Sarvani enclave 2/4, Brodipet, Beside Nokia Care, Guntur-2.

3.      Firstly the service centre ASP rejected to service the Karbonn phone set saying that it was an out dated set.  Again the complainant met the Navaratna Shop keeper and he advised the complainant to come after 1 week.  On 12^th May the ASP took the set and returned it on 27^th May.  He repaired the body of the Mobile set only.  He rejected to give a new battery.  As per the warranty the Battery has 6 months warranty (the warranty was given by the Navaratna  shopee, Brodipet, Guntur) on broacher face page the Karbonn Company printed “Long Battery Life”.  The complainant asked him the same.  He told that the risk should be bared by the Distributor only.  Again the complainant approached the distributor through the shop keeper.  After 15 days the Distributor instructed the complainant to meet the sales executive of the karbonn Company.  The sales Executive postponed the matter till now, with giving fortnight intervals.  As per the warranty the service centre should give a New Battery, along with the repaired set.

4.      The complainant was totally vexed mentally, physically and monetarily.  The incident effected on his journalism profession with that he brought the Reliance Mobile Set with Rs.3,000/-.  Hence the complaint.

The following is the version of 1^st opposite party in brief as follows:

5.     The opposite party submits that the complaint against this opposite party is not maintainable and that the allegations mentioned in the complaint more particularly against this opposite party are put to strict proof of the same by the complainant.  It is quite surprising to state that this opposite party gave warranty to the complainant for the battery.  The cash bill filed by the complainant is self sufficient that any item of cell phone sold by this opposite party, for any defect the customer has to contact the Service Centre of the said company product and this opposite party is in no way concerned to the same and the warranty detailed in the brochure are binding against the 2^nd opposite party and 4^th opposite party but not with this opposite party.

6.     Therefore this opposite party prays that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss.

The following is the version of 2^nd opposite party in brief: 

7.     This opposite party is the only service centre of Karbonn Mobiles.  This opposite party is not dealing with sales and purchase of Karbonn Mobiles.  The complainant did not purchase the Karbonn Mobile from this opposite party.  The complainant approached this opposite party along with his mobile model KC470 IMEI/MEID No. 910007000587521 with a problem of :Dead or Restart:.  This opposite party rectified and served the said mobile of the complainant under work order No. KA11545610322.  Except the said transaction there is no relation between this opposite party and the complainant.  The problem shown in the complaint is not complained by complainant at the time of giving the mobile to this opposite party for service.  As such the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

The following is the version of 3^rd opposite party in brief: 

8.      There are no allegations made against this opposite party any where in the complaint and that itself is sufficient to dismiss the complaint against this opposite party.  The bill filed by the complainant clearly shows the complainant has to go to service centre of the company and complain the defect to the said service centre and thus it is in between the complainant, the service centre and the main company and thus this opposite party is not at all responsible to any defect of the product because this opposite party is only a Distributor whose work is to sell the product of the company to the shop keeper who ever places order for the required product.  Thus under any circumstances, this opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation as pleaded by the complainant in his complaint.

9.      The opposite parties 1,2 and 3 filed their respective affidavits. Exs. A-1 to A-3 were marked on behalf of the complainant and no documents were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.                     4^th opposite party remained exparte.

10.    NOW THE POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION ARE :

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite

    Parties?

2.  Which of the opposite parties are liable to compensate the

     complaint and to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

11.    POINT NO.1:-    The complainant purchased mobile set from 1^st opposite party (retailer) on 07-03-11, with warranty of one year for the mobile and 6 months for the battery. The mobile became dead on 14-04-11 and on the advise of 1^st opposite party it was handed over to 2^nd opposite party authorized service centre on 12-05-11, the 2^nd opposite party (as per the version of 2^nd opposite party) repaired the set and delivered it on 27-05-11 to the complainant.

12.    The defect occurred to the set within the warranty period and there is no dispute regarding the same.

13.    The complainant’s allegation is that the 2^nd opposite party repaired only the body of the set and the problem was not rectified.  Ex.A-2 work done sheet revealed in its terms & conditions as below :  

Conditions 4:-

14.    During the limited warranty period Karbonn(UTL) or its authorized service network may repair or replace at Karbonn (UTL)s option, any defective products or parts there of with new or factory rebuilt replacement items and return the product to the consumer in working condition”.

15.    The problem in the Mobile Set was not rectified and that set was not put in working condition inspite of repairs undertaken by the 2^nd opposite party.  In these circumstances it is apt on the part of opposite parties to change the battery to avoid further complications in the set.  The opposite parties failed to do so.  Therefore the opposite parties committed deficiency of service.

16.    POINT NO. 2:     The 2^nd opposite party being authorized service provider for the 4^th opposite party (Manufacture) should have replaced the battery.  The 1^st opposite party who sold the mobile set with warranty to the complainant and the 4^th opposite party being the manufacturer has the responsibility over the products sold and manufactured by them.

17.    The inter relationships between these three opposite parties is immaterial to the Forum.

18.   There is no contractual liability between the 3^rd opposite party and the complainant though distributor of 4^th opposite party.  The claim against the 3^rd opposite party is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

19.    Ex.A-2 warranty disclosed that the complainant took return of his mobile on 27-05-11 without any protest.  It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties did not replace the battery and that can be known only after using it.  Subsequent to Ex.A-2 the complainant did not issue any notice to any of the opposite parties.  Under these circumstances awarding damages is not just & proper.

 20.  In light of afore said discussion fixing liability on 1^st opposite party (the retailer), 2^nd opposite party (authorized service provider) and 4^th opposite party (the manufacturer) would meet the ends of justice.

21.    In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as          indicated below:

1. The complainant is directed to approach the 1^st opposite party to return the mobile purchased under Ex.A-1 within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

1. The 1^st, 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties are directed to replace the battery of the Mobile set in issue with new battery with in 3 weeks there after the complainant handing over the set.

1. The 1^st,2^nd and 4^th opposite parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- towards legal expenses to the complainant with in six weeks. 
2. The claim against 3^rd opposite party is dismissed with costs of Rs.500/-.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the, 28^th day of March, 2012.

          MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For Opposite Party:   NIL

PRESIDENT