Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/9/2016

Basam Krishnaveni, Daughter of Venkata Ratnam - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.the manager, M/s Lot Mobiles Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ch.Naveen

21 Sep 2017

ORDER

Date of filing       :  25-01-2016

Date of Disposal :   21-09-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

Thursday, this the 21st day of  SEPTEMBER, 2017.

 

            Quorum: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B.., President

                           Sri K.Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member 

                   

C.C.No.9/2016        

 

Basam Krishnaveni,

Daughter of Venkata Ratnam,

Aged 34 years, Hindu,

Residing in Neredupalli Village,

Vinjamur Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District.                                                  …  Complainant

 

                      Vs.

                                                                            

1. The Manager,

    M/s.LOT MOBILES PVT.LTD.,

    16/1/188, Beside Kamakshi Complex,

    Trunk Road,

    Nellore.

 

2. The Manager,

    M/s.LOT MOBILES PVT.LTD.,

    73-1-11/C, Opp. Andhra Bank,

    Bandar Road,

    Patamata,

    Vijayawada – 520001.

 

3. The Manager,

    Datawind Innovations (P) Ltd.,

    563, East Mohan Nagar,

    Dhan Dhan Baba Deep Singh Ji Complex,

    Amritsar,

    Punjab, India – 143006.

 

4. Naz Mobiles,

    Rep. by its Proprietor,

    Authorized Service for Data Wind Innovations,

    Near Gandhi Statue,

    Turnk Road,

    Nellore.

 

5. The Manager,

    M/s.LOT MOBILES PVT.LTD.,

    1-98/8/5/A, Plot No.5

    Image Gardens Lane,

    Madhapur,

    Hyderabad,

    Telangana – 500081.                                         ….  Opposite parties

 

 

This matter coming on 14-09-2017 before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Naveen, Advocate for the complainant and opposite party Nos.1,2,3 & 5 are appeared as in-person and Sri M.Kota Reddy, Advocate                   for the opposite party No.4 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  (By Sri K.Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member)

                   

 

1.     The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays the Hon’ble Forum to direct the opposite parties to replace 7C+DATA WIND TAB to the complainant with cots of Rs.3,000/- towards mental suffering and agony and also pay costs of Rs.2,000/-.

 

2.  The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

 

  The complainant purchased 7C+DATA WIND TAB under invoice No.SL/NLR/986 on 23-06-2015 from the 1^st opposite party for Rs.3,499/- for which the 1^st opposite party gave 12 months warranty.  While so, on the very next day of its purchase, the said tab switched off and inside the screen was cracked.  So, on 26-06-2015, the complainant approached opposite party No.1 for repair of the same and opposite party No.1 told her to come on 29-06-2015. Again 29-06-2015, the complainant approached the Opposite party No.1, who in turn advised to approach opposite party No.4, who informed that it will cost Rs.2000/- for repair.  Later, the complainant got issued notices to opposite parties 1 to 5 on 20-08-2015 calling them to replace the tab and to pay damages etc., for which they did not respond.  So, the acts of the opposite parties come under the purview of the deficiency of service.   

 

3.  After admission of the complaint, notices were issued to opposite parties 1 to 5.  The opposite party Nos.1, 4 and 5 received the notices, acknowledgements of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 not yet returned. Thereafter, the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 appeared as in-person and           Sri M.Kota Reddy, Advocate filed vakalat for opposite party No.4. Then, the opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 5 filed their written versions.

 

    4.  The brief averments of the counter of the opposite party Nos.1, 2 & 5 are as follows:

          These opposite parties submit that all the complaint allegations are false and frivolous and the complaint is neither just nor sustainable under Law.    Except the complainant purchased the 7C + DATA WIND Tab on 23-06-2015 and denied the other averments.  The opposite party submits that the complainant explained clearly by the executives of 1^st opposite party No.1 and demonstrated the said Tab by opening sealed box before the complainant like all other customers.  The opposite parties further submit that at all there is any crack on the screen of the Tab, the complainant there itself can identify it.  But, the complainant satisfied with the working condition of the said tab and taken it to home and later making complaints, clearly indicates that the said Tab was subjected to physical damage.   The opposite parties submits that the complainant had approached the opposite party No.4 who is happened to be an authorized service center and in consultation with him for rectification of tab.

   The opposite parties further submit that the opposite parties 1, 2 and 5 are only the dealers of various brands of mobile phones and tabs including the said tab which is manufactured by opposite party No.3,  The manufacturer provides warranty for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase and the opposite party No.4 is an authorized service center who carryout repairs to that said tab within the warranty period and if such defects are beyond repair the manufacturer has to replace that with new tab.  Further it is needless to say that they are not even aware the defects arouse in the said tab i.e., whether the said defect is a manufacturing defect or defect due to mishandling.

    The opposite parties 1, 2 and 5 further submits that the complainant, though specifically pleaded that there is crack on the screen of tab, but failed to plead the specific reasons for it.  In order to remove all doubts and to know whether the tab has manufacturing defect or tab is subjected to wrong handling or not, expert opinion is required.  So, the opposite parties prays this Hon’ble Forum  may be pleased to send the tab of the complainant for expert opinion as required under section 13 ( C ) of the Consumer Protection Act.  Hence, the opposite parties 1 , 2 and 5 prays the Hon’ble Forum at the time of enquiry may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

 7.  The complainant filed her affidavit on 21-06-2017 as PW1 and in support of his case got marked Exs.A1 to A6 documents and also filed written arguments on 19-07-2017. The opposite party Nos.1, 2 & 5 filed their affidavit and also filed written arguments on 30-08-2017 but in support of their case no documents were filed.

8.  Heard arguments of both parties, perused the pleadings, documentary evidence placed on record and considered the written arguments filed behalf of on both sides.

 9.   Now, the points that arise for determinations are:

       1) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the

           opposite parties as pleaded?

        2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

        3) To what relief?

 

10. POINTS 1 AND 2:  As per the pleadings and evidence on record we can understand that the complainant 7C+DATA WIND TAB under invoice No.SL/NLR/986 on 23-06-2015 from the 1^st opposite party for Rs.3,499/- for which the 1^st opposite party gave 12 months warranty under Ex.A1.  The same was also admitted by the opposite parties1, 2 and 5.  In this case, the complainant contended that on the next day of its purchase, the tab switched it off, the screen from inside was cracked and also alleged that the tab was lesser quality.  To prove the same, the complainant did not file any authorized technician report nor any documentary evidence pertaining to the above said aspect.  In contra, the opposite parties 1, 2 and 5 states that the complainant mishandled the tab and alleged that there is no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant.  The opposite parties 1, 2 and 5 further states that to prove manufacturing defect or tab is subjected to wrong handling or not, expert opinion is required under section 13 (1) ( C ) of C.P.Act.   In this case,   the complainant to prove manufacturing defect of the tab she failed to deposit the tab before the Hon’ble Forum at the time of filing neither of complaint nor during the course of enquiry.  The person who makes the allegations against the opposite party, he has to prove the same as per Law.

11.  Further, the complainant Ex.A5 two photos clearly disclose the scratches on the tab.  But, the complainant did not state any reasons in the complaint relating to said scratches.  As per Consumer Protection Act, if any matter pertaining to goods, the complainant has to follow the mandatory   procedure contemplated under section 13 (1)  ( c ) but in this case the complainant did not comply the procedure.  Moreover, to find out the defect of the goods proper analysis or test of goods is necessary. The same aspect was discussed by our Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1999 SC 2035, M.R.F. Ltd., Vs.Jagadish Lal and anr. Section 13 – complaint on the account of defects – complaint filed on the ground that the goods purchased were defective – requirements under section 13 that the court must obtain sample from the complainant for proper testing etc.

12.   After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the complainant failed to prove deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Accordingly, the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties is dismissed.  So, we answer the point Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.

13.   In view of the above discussion and decision, we are of the view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

14. POINT NO.3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed but without costs.

        Typed to the dictation to the Stenographer transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 21st day of     SEPTEMBR, 2017.    

 

                   Sd/-                                                                   Sd/-                                                                  

            MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

21-06-2017

Basam Krishnaveni, D/o.Venkata Ratnam, aged 36 years, Hindu and residing at Neredupalli Village, Vinjamur Mandal, Nellore Ditrict.

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

RW1

17-03-2017

Surya Teja, Occupation: Stores Manager at LOT Mobiles Stores and R/o.Nellore.

                                                                         

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	23-06-2015	:	Receipt in relating to the purchase of 7C+DATA WIND Tab under invoice No.Sl/NLR4/986 issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A2		:	Warranty card in relation to 7C+DATA WIND Tab.
Ex.A3	20-08-2015	:	Office copy of the notice got issued by the advocate for complainant to the opposite parties.
Ex.A4			Postal order bearing No.41H 275493 for a sum of Rs.100/-.
Ex.A5			Photographs(two in nos.) of defective tab.
Ex.A6			Postal acknowledgements (two in nos.) along with the regd.post receipts (six in nos.).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:                      

 

:

NIL -

                                                              Id/-                     

                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Copies to:

 

1)Sri Ch.Naveen, Advocate, Flat No.5, Green Meadows Apartments,

   Opp:Magunta Subbarami Reddy House, Durgamitta, Nellore.

 

1. The Manager,

    M/s.LOT MOBILES PVT.LTD.,

    16/1/188, Beside Kamakshi Complex,

    Trunk Road,

    Nellore.

 

2. The Manager,

    M/s.LOT MOBILES PVT.LTD.,

    73-1-11/C, Opp. Andhra Bank,

    Bandar Road,

    Patamata,

    Vijayawada – 520001.

 

 

3. The Manager,

    Datawind Innovations (P) Ltd.,

    563, East Mohan Nagar,

    Dhan Dhan Baba Deep Singh Ji Complex,

    Amritsar,

    Punjab, India – 143006.

 

5. The Manager,

    M/s.LOT MOBILES PVT.LTD.,

    1-98/8/5/A, Plot No.5

    Image Gardens Lane,

    Madhapur,

    Hyderabad,

    Telangana – 500081.                                 

 

6)  Sri M.Kota Reddy,

     Advocate, Shanthi Nagar,

    Nellore – 524 003.                                                           

 

 

Date when order copies were issued