DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com., B.L., President
Sri S.Sreelatha, B.A.,B.L., Lady Member
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., Male Member
Thursday 12th day of April, 2012
C.C.No.107/2011
Between:
K.Sandeep,
S/o K.Venkateswarlu,
D.No.1/1/611,
R.K. Nagar,
Anantapur. … Complainant
Vs
1. The mobile Stores Limited,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
D.No.10/440-1, Ground Floor,
Opp: bank of Baroda, Subash Road,
Anantapur.
2. Sony Erricson Mobile Communications India
Private Limited,4th Floor, Dawan House, 18/17
WEA Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110 005. … Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri N.R.K. Mohan and Sri A.Suresh Kumar, Advocates for the complainant and the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 called absent and set exparte after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri T.Sundara Ramaiah, President: - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 to replace adequate new cell or to pay cost of the cell Rs.13,800/- with interest @ 18% from the date of purchase i.e., 05.02.2011 till the date of payment, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and to pay costs of the complaint.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainant purchased a Sony Ericson Cell from the shop of the 1st opposite party on 05.02.2011 for Rs.13,800/-. The 1st opposite party also issued a warranty certificate to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the cell. Immediately after purchase of the cell started giving trouble. The complainant on the advise of the 1st opposite party handed over the sell at Secunderabad office for repairs. The service centre received the cell and gave it back after repairs. Again the Cell gave trouble. The complainant handed over the same in the service centre in Secunderabad. The service centre issued a receipt to the complainant. Even after repairs the cell gave trouble and completely stopped working due to manufacturing defect. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2. Hence, the complaint.
3. Opposite Parties 1 & 2 remained exparte.
4. Considering the above pleadings the following are the points that arise for consideration.
1.Whether there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the evidence on affidavit of the complainant has been filed and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked.
6. Heard counsel for the complainant.
7. POINT NO.1: It is the case of the complainant he purchased a Sony Ericson Cell from the 1st opposite party on 05.02.2011. The complainant to show the purchased the Cell filed Ex.A1 receipt. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.A1 that the complainant purchased the cell from the 1st opposite party for Rs.13,800/- Ex.A2 is the warranty certificate. It is further the case of the complainant that after purchase of the cell it started giving trouble and that he handed over it to the service centre at Secunderabad. The complainant filed Ex.A3 to A5 to show that he gave the cell at service centre Secunderabad. The complainant also filed Ex.A6 to establish that he handed over the set at service centre Secunderabad to get it repaired. The complainant also in his sworn affidavit clearly stated that the cell purchased by him from the 1st opposite party started giving trouble and that he gave it in service centre in Secunderbad for repairs. The opposite parties did not come forward to contest the matter. The documents filed by the complainant go to show that the cell purchased by him from the 1st opposite party did not function. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2. We think it is just and proper to direct the opposite parties to provide new cell in the place of the Cell that was purchased by the complainant from the 1st opposite party.
8. POINT NO.2:- In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 to provide a new cell to the complainant in the place of the cell that was purchased by the complainant from the 1st opposite party within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 12h day of April, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
-NIL -
ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
- NIL –
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 Original Retail Invoice dt.05-02-2011 for Rs.13,800/- issued by
the 1st opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A2 Original Warranty Certificate issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A3 Receipt issued by Service Centre, Secunderabad dt.25-02-2011.
Ex.A4 Receipt issued by Service Centre, Secunderabad dt.11-03-2011.
Ex.A5 Receipt issued by Service Centre, Secunderabad dt.31-03-2011.
Ex.A6 – Acknowledgement issued by Service Centre, Secunderabad.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
-NIL-
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
