This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri.K. Ravi Kumar, Advocate for opposite party no.2; Notice for opposite party No.1 served and Notice to opposite party refused; 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 R. Kiran Kumar, Member)
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 Karbonn Mobile Phone, Model No.K550 vide its IMEI No.910001460913343 Battery No.S/N:BAK0209110806322, on 23-04-2010 for Rs.3,300/- vide cash receipt No.1026, dt.23-04-2010 from the opposite party No.1. The new Karbonn mobile phone K550, first two months it was good in function, after that it starts giving problems in operating system. Immediately the complainant informed the same to the opposite party No.1, thereby on the advise of the opposite party No.1 the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 Service Center in Khammam. The complainant further submitted that the technician of opposite party no.2 attended on the handset and found that there is some problem in the main board and also the other problems, the opposite party No.2 kept the mobile in the service center by saying to approach after ten days. The complainant also submitted that accordingly the complainant approached the opposite party no.2 and requested to rectify the problem permanently or otherwise replace the handset. But the opposite party No.2 failed to do so and even failed to give proper reply in spite of many rounds made by the complainant. The complainant further submitted that he is a legal practitioner in Khammam having good communication with the other officials and clients, due to non working of the said handset, he is unable to communicate with his clients and other important persons for which he suffered a lot of physical and mental agony. For that the complainant is claiming to replace the handset with the new one or to pay the bill amount apart from Rs.10,000/- towards damages and for causing physical and mental agony.
2. On behalf of the complainant the following documents were filed and marked as Exhibits A1 to A3.
Ex.A1:- Cash bill No.1026, dt.23-04-2010 for Rs.3,300/- issued by opposite party No.1.
Ex.A2:- Warranty Card of Karbonn handset.
Ex.A3:- User guide of Karbonn handset of opposite party No.2.
3. On receipt of the notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared through their counsel and filed counter. In their counter, opposite party No.2 submitted that there are two authorized Karbonn service centers are situated in Khammam. One is situated at Wyra Road under the name of Sony Ericsson Service center and another at Vinoda Mahal Road, Khammam under the name SV Electronics. Also submitted that the complainant failed to show that in which service center he alleged to have been given his handset, complainant failed to file any peace of document for the same and even he failed to file Job card. The opposite party No.2 further submitted that the complainant never approached the service center of opposite party no.2 for attending repair of his handset or any other purpose and simply he field the complaint by impleading the opposite party No.2, which is nothing but to gain wrongfully. As such the opposite party No.2 prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On behalf of the opposite parties No documents were filed.
5. Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the point that arose for consideration is,
Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?
Point:-
In this case the complainant purchased Karbonn mobile phone from the opposite party No.1 for an amount of Rs.3,300/- on 23-04-2010. The first two months the mobile phone was good in function and after it starts giving problem in operating system. Immediately the complainant informed the same to the opposite party No.1 and on the advice of opposite party No.1, he approached the opposite party No.2. The technician of opposite party No.2 attended on the handset and found that there is some problem in main board and rectified the same. Then after also the mobile phone giving same problem, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 service center 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.
In para No.3 of the counter filed by opposite party No.2, opposite party No.2 submitted that “The complainant failed to show that in which service center the complainant alleged to have been given his handset, failed to file any peace of document for the same and even he did not file job card. The complainant never approached the opposite party No.2 for attending repairs of his handset or any other purpose and simply filed the case to gain wrongfully.” The complainant failed to file any rejoinder to disprove the contention of the opposite parties.
From the above it is observed that the complainant purchased the mobile phone on 23-04-2010 and he is utilizing the same. Except filing Ex.A1 to A3 the complainant failed to produce any evidence to support his case that the first two months it was in good function and after that it starts giving problems in operating system, he approached the opposite parties No.1 & 2. Even after filing the counter by opposite party No.2, the complainant failed to produce any document to prove his case.
In view of the counter filed by the opposite party no.2 and in the absence of documents to support the case of complainant and after carefully examining the material on record we found that the complainant failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove his case. And also we observed that the complainant failed to show the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, in these circumstances the complaint is dismissed.
6. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this 18th day of January, 2013
FAC PRESIDENT MEMBER
DISTRIC CONSUEMR FORUM, KHAMMAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant: None
Witnesses examined for opposite parties: None
Exhibits marked for Complainant:
Ex.A1:- Cash bill No.1026, dt.23-04-2010 for Rs.3,300/- issued by opposite party No.1.
Ex.A2:- Warranty Card of Karbonn handset.
Ex.A3:- User guide of Karbonn handset of opposite party No.2.
Exhibits marked for opposite parties:
- Nil -
FAC PRESIDENT MEMBER
DISTRIC CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM
