BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 31^st MARCH 2016

PRESENT

        SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :  HON’BLE  PRESIDENT           

        SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI        :   HON’BLE MEMBER                                                                  

COMPLAINT NO. 97/2014

(Admitted on 21.03.2014)

Prakash Karanth,

S/o Sri Subraya Karanth,

Aged about 46 years,

Narikombu Village and post,

Bantwal Taluk-574 231.,

D.K. District.                             …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri. Gopalakrishna.K.R.)

 VERSUS

1. Reliance Web Stores Ltd.,

Ground Floor, Somayagi Building,

Bunts Hostel Road,

Mangalore-575 003.

2. The Manager,

Accel Frontline Ltd.,

D.No.25-2-90/3,

Mathruchaya, Opp: Volkswagen

Showroom, Kankanady,

Mangalore-575 002.

3. The Chief Manager,

Reliance Web Stores Ltd.,

R.O “H” Block 1^st,

Dhirubhai Ambani

K Ledge City, Thane-Belapur Road,

Koper Khairne,

Navi Mumbai-400 710.    ……OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite party No. 1&3: Sri. S.P.D’SOUZA)

 (Opposite party No. 2: Ex-parte)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT  

SMT. ASHA SHETTY

1. 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging defect in hand set as against the opposite parties claiming certain reliefs.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

  That, the complainant purchased handset tab cool pad M31 from Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 by paying Rs. 12,999/- on 03.09.2012.  It is stated that after purchase of handset immediately the said set was not functioning.  Immediately the complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 1 and thereafter approached Opposite Party No. 3 and both the Opposite Parties directed the complainant to approach Opposite Party No. 2 and the Opposite Parties found that touch not working and the set is dead.  Feeling aggrieved by the above the complainant sought for replacement. But the Opposite Party not complied the same. Hence the above the complainant filed the complaint  filed U/sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as the act) seeking direction from this FORA to the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs. 12,999/- along with interest and compensation and cost of the proceedings.

II.      1. Version notice served to the opposite parties by R.P.A.D. The Opposite Party No. 1 and 3 appeared through their counsel filed version and Opposite Party No. 2 to in spite of receiving version notice not appeared nor represented the case till this date. Hence we have proceeded ex-parte against opposite party No. 2.   

          The opposite party No. 1 and 3 stated that they are not the manufacturer of the hand set.  The opposite party No. 2 is the authorized service center of the above hand set.  It is contended that the manufacturer of the above hand set not made as party to the proceedings, hence the complaint is not maintainable.  It is contended that the averments in the complaint are false and these opposite parties no way are liable to the complainant.  It is the manufacturer and the opposite party No. 2 who are liable and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 III.   1. In support of the complaint, Prakash Karanth (CW1) the Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex. C1 to C4. One Sri Pareekshit Raj authorized signatory of the Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 (RW1) filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. 

          In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
2. Whether the complainant proves that the Handset-Tab Cool Pad M-31 purchased on 03.09.2012 from the opposite parties found to be defective?-
3. Whether the complainant proves that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service?
4. If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
5. What order? 

We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:

Point No. (i) and (ii): Negative

Point No. (iii) and (iv). As per the final order.

                                        REASONS

IV. 1. POINTS No. (i) TO (iv):  The complainant in order to substantiate the averments made in the complaint filed affidavit supported by documents i.e. Ex C-1 to C-4, wherein the Ex C1 is the invoice which shows that the complainant paid Rs. 12,999/- for purchase of hand set on 03.09.2012 to opposite party No. 1 & 3.

Now the first point arise for our consideration is that whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder necessary party to the proceedings? In the instant case, the complainant admitted that within the warranty period the hand set found defect and it is not working.   Further, the complainant and the opposite parties admitted that there is a defect in the set and the same is in the custody of opposite party No. 2.  When that being so, the hand set has some manufacturing defect therefore the manufacturer of the hand set is necessary party to the proceedings. The complainant ought to have made manufacturer as party to the proceedings but no attempt has been made.  The manufacture of the hand set has first and primary liability as far as defect of the hand set is concerned.  Therefore, complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.

In view of the above discussion, we hereby close the complaint with liberty to file fresh complaint.  No order as to costs.      

In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint is closed with liberty to file fresh complaint. No order as to costs.   

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31st  day of MARCH 2016)

PRESIDENT                                      MEMBER

 (SMT. ASHA SHETTY)                     (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)

D.K. District Consumer Forum                      D.K. District Consumer Forum

               Mangalore.                                                   Mangalore.

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW-1  :       Prakash Karanth  Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex. C1 :      03.09.2012:        Invoice copy issued by

the Opposite Party No. 1.

Ex. C2 :      30.05.2013:        Customer Acknowledgment

issued by the Opposite

Party No.2. 

Ex. C3 :      04.09.2012:        Office copy of the lawyers notice,

with 2 receipt.  

Ex. C4 :                                   Acknowledgments.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW-1  : Sri Pareekshit Raja Bhat–Opposite party No. 1&3.

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Nil

Dated: 31.03.2016.                                 PRESIDENT

02.03.2016.           

  ORDER

The complaint is closed with liberty to file fresh complaint. No order as to costs.  

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 6 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of MARCH 2016)

PRESIDENT                                      MEMBER

 (SMT. ASHA SHETTY)                     (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)

D.K. District Consumer Forum                      D.K. District Consumer Forum

               Mangalore.                                                   Mangalore.