BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H.Prasad, B.A.,LL.B.,President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Wednesday the 18th day of June, 2008
C.C.No. 169/07
Between:
S. Ghouse Basha, S/o. S.Abdul Gafoor,
R/o.H.No.23-63, Peta, Sagmandi Street, Kurnool.
… Complainant
Versus
- The Area Manager, Ucom Techonologies Private Limited,
G-39, Bhupal Complex, Kurnool.
- The Regional Service Manager, Ucom Technologies Private Limited,
G-9 Apollo Dubai Plaza, 100-Ground Floor, Mahalingapuram, Main Road, Nangam Bakam, Chennai
- The Zonal Manager, Ucom Technologies Private Limited,
204 and 205, 2nd Floor, Windsor Plaza, Osmania University road, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.
4. Anwar Times,
7 and 8 Abdulla Khan Estate, OPP. Z.P. Office, Kurnool.
… Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M.R. Krishna, Advocate, for the complainant, and opposite party No.1, 2 and 3 is called absent set exparte and Sri. N. Siva Prasad Gupta, Advocate, for the opposite party No.4 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.169/07
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/s 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking directions on the opposite parties for payment to him Rs.5,600/- towards cost of the cell phone, Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the complainant alleging that on 9-2-2007 he purchased from opposite party No.4 a cell phone of Motoralla make bearing No. L- 6 SLVR IMEI: 352512013599897 and MSNI No. 617WGR 497B and since the date of purchase the said cell phone is often giving troubles and thereby not functioning properly and inspite of reporting the complaint the first opposite party could not rectify the defect inspite of attending to its several times and merely provided a cell phone of Loner Company on 20-7-2007 which also not functioned well and inspite of replacement of the board in said Loaner set it was not functioning properly on that the first opposite party has replaced the said loner set with another set on 14-8-2007 which also not function properly on account of its inherent defects. Being vexed with such replacement the complainant requested the opposite parties vide its notice dated 22-8-2007 for refund of the amount paid for purchase of the cell phone and the opposite parties inspite of receipt of said notice did neither reply to it nor responded positively to the request of the complainant. The said conduct of the opposite parties is amounting to deficiency of service and selling a defective goods.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case while the opposite parties 1,2 and 3 by their absence to the case proceedings remained exparte, the opposite party No.4 contested the case filling its written version denying the truth in complaint and any of its liability to the complainant’s claim and alleging his status as a mere dealer to sell the Motoralla cell phones and admitting the sale of motoralla cell phone to the complainant and thereby not liable to provide any service as service centers were provided separately for attending any defects in the sold sets.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 to A6 and his sworn affidavit, the contesting opposite party No.4 merely relied upon his sworn affidavit filed in reiteration of its contentions.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the liability of the opposite parties for the claim made in the complaint.
5. The Ex.A1 is cash bill dated 9-2-2007.It envisages the sale of the cell phone described in complaint to the complainant by OP.No.4 for Rs.5,600/-. The said fact remained proved as there is any denial of it by the opposite parties. The Ex.A2 and A4 are job sheet cum receipt dated 10-8-2007 and 18-8-2007 issued by Ucom Technologies Private Limited (OP.No.3).They envisage the defects complaint to the set for attending upon. The above said facts not being discredited by the opposite party, from the ExA2, and A4 there appears truth in the contentions of the complainant as to improper functioning of the cell phone purchased by him. The Ex.A3 issued by Ucom Technologies Private Limited, Kurnool on 14-8-2007 envisages the replacement of the defective set of the complainant with new Loner Handset. The Ex.A3 being not rebutted otherwise, there appears truth in the contention of the complainant as to the replacement of the defective set by new Loner Handset.
6. The Ex.A5 is the office copy of the notice dated 21-8-2007 caused by complainant to opposite party No.2 it reiterates all the facts stated above besides to the request of the complainant for refund of the amount as the sold set or provided set is of any use. The postal receipts and acknowledgement there under envisage the receipt of the above said notice by the opposite parties. There being any material from the opposite party side contradicting its truth, there appears every bonafidees in the grievances of the complainant. The Ex.A6 is reminder to the Ex.A5 given to the opposite parties at the non response of the latter to Ex.A5 and expressing his constraincy for legal recourse if his request in earlier notice was not attended upon. In the absence of any material from the opposite party side that there was any response to Ex.A5 and A6 it remains clear as to the indifferent conduct of the opposite parties towards their customers.
7. The opposite party No.4 alleging himself as dealer of the cell phone purchased by the complainant disowns any of his liability to the defects in the sold set and cites the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Abinandhan Vs Ajith Kumar Varma and others reported in I (2008) CPJ 336 (NC) which envisages the dealer can not be liable for manufacturing defects. The opposite party No.4 did not filed any cogent material on to the record envisaging his status as dealer to that cell phone company. Nor the complaint averments any where allege the status of the opposite party No.4 as dealer. While such is so the Ex.A1 except mentioning that OP.No.4 as authorized dealer of all types of cell phones did not place any such authorization by which the status of OP.No.4 could be accepted as of dealer of the company the cell phone of which was sold by him to the complainant. Hence, in the absence of any cogent proof as to the status of the opposite party No.4 as mere dealer the decision cited supra is of any avail to the opposite party No.4.
8. Neither the complaint alleges the privy of the opposite parties 1 to 3 to opposite party No.4 and to the cell phone purchased by the complainant nor the cause of action of the complainant on opposite parties 1 to 3 nor does the complaint any where say of any concern of the opposite parties 1 to 3 to the cell phone purchased by the complainant from OP.No.4. Nor the complaint any where envisages the opposite parties 1 to 3 are having any manufacturing concern to the cell phone purchased by the complainant. Nor does the complainant has filed any warranty of said cell phone connecting the concern of Ops 1 to 3 to it. Nor the Ex.A2 and A4 nor the Ex.A3 any where envisage the opposite parties 1 to 3 are having any manufacturing concern of the cell phone purchased by the complainant. Hence, in the absence of any material as to the status of opposite parties 1 to 3 as there any manufacturing concern to said cell phone purchased by the complainant, the opposite parties 1 to 3 can not be deemed of any liability of manufacturer and so of any liability of theirs to the complainant’s claim.
9. In the circumstances stated above the liability if any for the defects in purchased set and its consequences shall be with opposite party No.4 only an account of the said sale to the complainant under Ex.A1.
10. consequently, the case of the complainant is dismissed against opposite parties 1 to 3 and allowed against opposite party No.4 directing him to pay to the complainant Rs.5,600/- as the cost of the cell phone taking the return of the defective set from the complainant within a month of the receipt of this order. As there is any notice of grievances of the complainant to this opposite party No.4 before to the filling of this case, the complainant can not claim of any compensation for mental agony and cost of the case.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 18th day of June 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Cash bill, dated 9-2-2007 for Rs.5,600/-.
Ex.A2. Xerox copy of Job sheet cum receipt, dated 20-6-2007.
Ex.A3. Slip issued by opposite party No.1, dated 14-8-2007.
Ex.A4. Job sheet cum receipt, dated 18-8-2007.
Ex.A5. Office copy of legal notice, dated 21-8-2007 along with
Postal receipts and acknowledgements.
Ex.A6. Reminder notice, dated 12-9-2007 along with postal
receipts and acknowledgements.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
-Nil-
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties.
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
Copy was posted on :
