BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 6th March 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.103/2015
(Admitted on 13.3.2015)
Mr. Prashanth Kumar,
Aged 49 years,
S/o late M.Vajranabha Shetty,
Residing at Pranamya, Bhagavathi Nagar,
2nd Main, Kodialguttu West,
Mangalore 575003.
……… Complainant
(Advocate for Complainant by Sri VKR)
VERSUS
1. The Proprietor/ Managing Partner/managing Director,
Intex Technologies (India) Limited,
B/at D.18/2, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase II, New Delhi 110020, India.
2. The Proprietor/ Managing Partner/managing Director,
Mobile Matrix, B/at shop No.20 B,
Dubai Market Building,
Opp. Central Market,
Mangalore 575001.
3. The Proprietor/ Managing Partner/managing Director,
Chipnet Technologies,
(authorized service centre for intex),
B/at F.33, 1st floor,Meridion Guru Plaza, Bejai,
Mangalore 575003.
…. Opposite Parties
(Opposite Party No.1 and 2: Ex parte)
(Advocate for Opposite Party No. Sri. SRS)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D
- 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant claims he purchased the mobile from the manufactured by Opposite Party No. 1 from Opposite Party No.2 for offer price of Rs.2,600/ for valid receipt in the warranty covered in 27.6.2015. But the hand set developed false on 22.9.2014 gave for repair with Opposite Party No.3 and which was had developed problem on 20.10.2014 again complainant referred no network problem to Opposite Party no.3. not repaired to delivery new cell phone against Opposite Party 1 and 2 also damaged. Hence the complaint for the reliefs claimed.
II. Opposite Party No.3 in the written version claims the hand set when it was given Opposite Party 3 was scratched conditions was damages as mentioned in the job sheet. The problem was rectified and returned to the complainant to received balance in the satisfied for SIM problem. Opposite Party No.3 on 21.10.2014 and again 31.12.2014 the complainant given to the office replace to the hand set and returned to the answer Opposite Party No.3, neither sells the nor manufactures in the hand set, hence dismissal of complaint. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 placed Exparte.
3. In support of the above complaint the complainant Mr.Prashanth Kumar, filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked Ex.C1 to C4 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite party Mr.Vinay, (RW1) Proprietor, chipnet Technologies, of opposite party also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him.
III. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
The learned counsels filed notes of arguments. We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the parties. Our findings on the points are as under are as follows:
Point No. (i) : Affirmative
Point No. (ii) : Partly Affirmative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. POINTS No. (i): In the complainant having purchased hand set manufacturing by Opposite Party No.1 as seen from memo Ex.C1 dated 27.6.2014 developed certain fault and as such there is not only relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties, the claim of complainant in defective hand set having had denied by Opposite Party No.3 and not responded by Opposite Party No.1 and 2 there is consumer dispute as mentioned in the section 2 (1) (e) C.P. Act, hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
POINTS No.(ii): During the course of arguments it was pointed out and admittedly by complaint that new hand set for the damaged one was given to complainant which was acknowledged by learned counsel for complainant, hence pray 9 (a) of complaint.
2. As to damages claimed by the complainant considering that Opposite Party has already replaced the hand set of complainant with a new hand set towards litigation expenses and towards compensation Rs.2,000, in our view is just and proper, hence we answer point No. 2 partly answered in the affirmative.
POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order
ORDER
The Complaint is partly allowed with cost. Opposite Party No. 1 and No.2 directed to pay Rs. 2,000/(Rupees Two thousand only) as damages.
2. Advocates fee fixed at Rs.2,000/(Rupees Two thousand only).
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 5 dictated by President to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 6th March 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(LAVANYA M RAI) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr.Prashanth Kumar,
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: original cash memo for purchase of cell phone issued by Opposite Party no.2 dated 27.6.2014.
Ex.C2:Original Job sheet issued by Opposite Party No.3 dated 22.9.2014.
Ex.C3: Original Job sheet issued by Opposite Party No.3 dated 21.10.2014.
Ex.C4: Office copy of the legal notice dated 29.11.2014.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1: Mr. Vinay , Proprietor, Chipnet Technologies,
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Dated: 6.3.2017 PRESIDENT
