Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/52/2014

Nakka Brahmam - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.Trade Bazar Hometech Ventures LLP,Prathamesh Complex,Rep By its Manager - Opp.Party(s)

M.D.Rahimkhan

27 Oct 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing     :25-07-2014

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:27-10-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Tuesday, this the 27^th day of   October, 2015

 

PRESENT: Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L.,LL.M.,President(FAC) & Member                             

                   Sri N.S. Kumara Swamy, B.Sc.,LL.B., Member.

 

C.C.No.52/2014

 

Nakka Brahmam, S/o.Late N. Ramulu,

Aged about 42 years, O/o.Railway Mail Service,

Near Railway Station, Nellore,

Andhra Pradesh-524 001.                                                                     ..… Complainant         

 

                                                                           Vs.

 

1.	Trade Bazaar Hometech Ventures LLP, Prathamesh Complex, Represented by it’s Manager, Building No.H, Opposite to Vatika Restaurant, Mumbai Nasik High Way No.3, Bhiwandi By Pass Road, Bhiwandi-421 302, Maharastra.
2.	Karbonn, Represented by it’s Managing Director, Trade Bazaar Hometech Ventures LLP, 7 Mittal Ind. Estate, Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka, Andheri East, Mumbai-400059.
3.	Mobile World, Represented by it’s Proprietor, Karbonn and Micromax authorized service centre, Meaclines Club Complex, Upstairs, Shop No.1, Opposite to Leela Mahal, Nellore-524 001.                                  …..Opposite parties

                                                              .  

            This complaint coming on 19-10-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri Md. Rahimkhan, advocate for the complainant and                                                                                                                      opposite parties 1 to 3 called  absent and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri N.S. KUMARA SWAMY, MEMBER)

 

This  complaint is filed under Seciton-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.9,999/-  with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of it’s purchase i.e., 23-02-2014 till the date of realization, damages of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, inconvenience and  financial loss and costs of Rs.2,000/-.

 

            The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant purchased Karbonn titanium  S7 (black model) No.X0007C121D through courier for Rs.9,999/-.   The said mobile booked through online and received under invoice bearing No.DVG7QKR, dated 23-02-2014 from 1^st opposite party.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 gave warranty of one year for the said mobile and six months for the battery. The said mobile stopped functioning  in the month of March, 2014 and the complainant telephoned to 1^st opposite party about the defect and the said 1^st opposite party advised the complainant to approach 2^nd opposite party  for replacement or rectification of the problem. After several contacts with the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, they informed the complainant to handover the said telephone to their service centre at Nellore, assuring  that the service centre at Nellore will rectify the problem or to issue  another new mobile.  On the advise of opposite parties 1 and 2, the complainant  approached 3^rd opposite party, who is the authorized service centre of opposite parties at Nellore on 25-06-2014.  The 3^rd opposite party received the said defective mobile  under receipt bearing serial No.31, dated 25-06-2014 stating that there is manufacturing problem and informed the complainant that the said problem will rectify within two days.  On 29-06-2014, the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 with a fond hope that mobile phone problem be rectified.  But, the 3^rd opposite party unable to  rectify the problem  and it is the legal duty of the opposite parties to rectify the problem within a warranty period but they failed to do so.  The said mobile is with the 3^rd opposite party without any  progress.

 

            2.         The complainant being the government employee  attracted by vide publicity and assurance  of opposite parties 1 and 2 purchased the said mobile  from out of his  hard earnings  with fond hope that the said mobile phone  will work satisfactorily.  But his hopes are in vain  due to  defective and inferior quality   supplied by opposite parties .  On account of this defective cell phone,  the complainant and his family members suffered alot of mental agony and distress.  Hence, complaint is filed for refund of purchase amount of Rs.9,999/- with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of its purchase  and also  liable for  payment of damages of Rs.20,000/- and costs.

            3.         Notices sent to opposite parties  1 to 3  by way of registered post with acknowledgement due.   Notices served to opposite parties 2 and 3 and notice to 3^rd opposite party returned as “Refused”.  All the opposite parties 1 to 3 are called absent and  there is no representation on their behalf .  Hence, treated as no defense on the side of opposite party.

4.         On the other hand, complainant filed chief affidavit as P.W.1, marked Exs.A1 to A3 and also filed written arguments.  Heard, the learned counsel for the complainant and proceeded with as there was no contest on the side of opposite parties.

 

            5.         Perused the material papers on record. 

 

            6.         The point for determination would be:

1.   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite

   parties, if so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief  as    

   prayed for?

2.    To what relief?

 

            7.         POINT No.1:  As seen from the  evidence  on affidavit placed by the complainant would clearly goes to show that the complainant purchased Karbonn titanium  S7 (black model) No.X0007C121D through courier for Rs.9,999/-.   The said mobile received under invoice bearing No.DVG7QKR, dated 23-02-2014 from 1^st opposite party with a warranty period of one year for the mobile phone and six months for the  battery. The said mobile phone  was purchased through the online  on the wide publicity  and assurances of opposite parties 1 and 2.

 

            8.         As per the terms and conditions of the warranty and as per the terms of the contract, the opposite parties are bound to supply the good  mobile to the complainant, when it is booked on online process.  It is also reveals from the record that the opposite parties have not fulfill their part of obligation inspite of making representations  in this regard, the opposite parties kept quite without rectifying the defect.  The complainant because of inaction on the side of opposite parties, confined to  approach this Forum by filing purchase of invoice, warranty card and also receipt of mobile by the 3^rd opposite party, which are marked as Exs.A1 to A3 for the purpose of  refund of amount of Rs.9,999/- and also damages.  Having received registered post notices by 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties, which were sent through this Forum, they did not respond either to contest the matter or to admit the averments of the complaint.  Long silence and inaction on the part of opposite parties would certainly amounts to deficiency in service.  Unscrupulous traders, after receiving the amounts through online   should not be spared, when they failed to supply the good material to the customer.

            9.         Generally, a common man used to  purchase mobile phone and other goods from  a shop through  online basis by expecting the purpose, for which the goods are purchased will serve the fulfillment of their desires. If there is any defect in the said goods, the very purpose of purchase will be defeated and the customer  will be put to  great hardship.  In such  a situation, in the instant case, the opposite parties 1 to 3 cannot escape from their liability without rectifying the problem arose in the mobile phone. 

When once the mobile is received from the manufacturing company, it is  bounden duty of the opposite parties  to see that the said mobile  is in good and proper working condition to the satisfaction of the complainant at the time of selling the mobile.  Hence, the opposite parties  1 to 3 are  jointly  and severally liable to rectify the defects of mobile phone. Since, they failed to cure it permanently then it amounts to  inherent manufacturing defect.  Hence, the complainant placed  plausible evidence  and  the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties are proved for their gross negligence and inaction.

            10.       Further with regard to the damages, it is to be considered how much compensation is entitled apart from payment of Rs.9,999/-  towards the purchase of mobile.  The complainant claimed  for a direction to the opposite parties for payment of damages of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and negligence committed by the opposite parties due to deficiency in service.  In order to obtain a direction for payment of damages of Rs.20,000/-, the complainant has to establish the mental  agony and sufferings said to have been caused to him and to his family.  Merely because the opposite parties did not choose to contest the claim of the complainant, the complainant could not  automatically entitled to  whatever the amount claimed in the complaint.  The complainant could not be entitled  for payment of  exhorbitant  damages of Rs.20,000/- as  claimed.   An amount of Rs.5,000/- appears to be  reasonable amount of  damages besides the  costs of  Rs.2,000/-.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled  to refund of Rs.9,999/-  and  Rs.5,000/- towards damages besides the costs of Rs.2,000/- . Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

11.       POINT No.2: In the result,  the complaint is allowed  directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly  and severally liable  to pay the complainant towards the purchase amount of Rs.9,999/- (Rupees nine thousand nine hundred and ninty nine only) pertaining to the mobile i.e., karbonn titanium  S7 (black model) No.X0007C121D  with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint  i.e., 25-07-2014 till the date of realization.  The opposite parties are also further directed to pay damages of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) besides the costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).  In default of the payment of the above said amounts, the complainant shall be at liberty to take appropriate legal proceedings for recovery of the amounts.

Typed to the dictation to the Stenographer, corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  27^th day of  October, 2015.

 

 

            Sd/-                                                                                                   Sd/-

          MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

09-10-2015

Sri Nakka Brahmam, S/o.Late N. Ramulu, Nellore (Deposition Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

-Nil-

 

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -	23-02-2014	Photocopy of Tax Invoice / Cash Memorandum in favour of complainant issued by the opposite party No.1.
Ex.A2  -	23-02-2014	Photocopy of Warranty Card in favour of  N. Brahmam issued by opposite party No.1.
Ex.A3  -	25-06-2014	Photocopy of bill in S.No.31 issued by opposite party No.3 in favour of complainant.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

-Nil-

 

 

                                                                                                                         Id/-

 

                                                                                                         PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri Md.Rahimkhan, Advocate, Nellore.
2.	M/s.Trade Bazaar Hometech Ventures LLP, Prathamesh Complex, Represented by it’s Manager, Building No.H, Opposite to Vatika Restaurant, Mumbai Nasik High Way No.3, Bhiwandi By Pass Road, Bhiwandi-421 302, Maharastra.
3.	Karbonn, Represented by it’s Managing Director, Trade Bazaar Hometech Ventures LLP, 7 Mittal Ind. Estate, Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka, Andheri East, Mumbai-400059.
4.	Mobile World, Represented by it’s Proprietor, Karbonn and Micromax authorized service centre, Meaclines Club Complex, Upstairs, Shop No.1, Opposite to Leela Mahal, Nellore-524 001.

 

Date when free copy was issued: