Telangana

Hyderabad

CC/196/2017

M Chandrashekar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aaryan's Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

08 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM I HYDERABAD
(9th Floor, Chandravihar Complex, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad 500 001)
 
Complaint Case No. CC/196/2017
( Date of Filing : 04 May 2017 )
 
1. M Chandrashekar
S/o. Anandam, Aged 24, R/o. H.No.3-92/1, Kummarikunta Village, Julapally Mandal, Peddapalli District.
Peddapalli
Telangana
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Aaryan's Mobiles
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, 6-3-788/A-7, Malgani Creations, Below Apollo Pharmacy, Opp. Chandana Brothers, Ammerpet, Hyderabad 500016
Hyderabad
Telangana
2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Rep. by its Authorised Person, 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector - 43, DLF Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana 122202
Gurgaon
Haryana
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. P. Vijender PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. D.Nirmala MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 08 Oct 2018
Final Order / Judgement

                                                                                   Date of Filing : 04-05-2017          

                                                                                     Date of Order :08 -10-2018

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I

                                               AT HYDERABAD

                                                     P r e s e n t

                         SRI  P. VIJENDER, B.Sc.,  L L B,  PRESIDENT

                            SMT. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., L L B,  MEMBER

                        MONDAY  THE    8th   DAY OF OCTOBER,  2018                                                      

                                 Consumer Case No.196/2017 

 Between:

 

Srri M.Chandrashekar,  S/o. Anandam,

Aged 24 years, Occ: Unemployed,

R/o. H.No.3-92/1,  Kummarikunta Village,

Julapally Mandal, Peddapalli District.                             Complainant

 

       A N D

    

  1. Aaryan’s Mobiles,

Rep.by its Authorized Signatory,

# 6-3-788/A  -7, Malgani Creations,

Below  Apollo Pharmacy, Opp: Chandana,

Brothers, Ameerpet, Hyderabad – 16.

 

  1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.,

Rep.by its Authorized  person,

20th  to 24th Floor, two Horizon Centre,

Golf Course Road, Sector -43,

DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 202.                    ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

  Counsel for the complainant                   :   Party in Person

  Counsel for the opposite party No.1     :  Absent

  Counsel for the opposite party No 2     : Mr.Bhasker Poluri

 

                                            O R D E R

 

       (  Sri P.Vijender,  B.Sc. LL B , Hon’ble President   on   behalf of bench)

 

 

1)                 This complaint is filed  u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of  services on the part of opposite parties and in consequence  to it seeking  refund of Rs.700/-  with interest  thereon at 24%  p.a.  from the  date of  complaint to the date of  payment and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing pain  and  suffering  and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards costs  of this complaint.

2)                     Complainant’s case in brief is he purchased  Sam Sung  hand set  with No. as 6B  B6  355 BEE   S/N,  AA 1 HJ15 ES/RB on 17/11/2016 from  opposite party shop and paid Rs.700/-  as cost of it.  After using  the  same  for 5 months  battery started giving  problems.  Hence  he approached opposite party No.1  on 24/4/2017 and handed over the battery for repair.  Opposite  party No.1  after  collecting the battery  told that he will send it to the company for repairing  but till date opposite party No.1  neither returned the battery after attending   the repairs nor replaced  the same with new one.   The complainant  approached  opposite party NO.1  for several occasions  either to  repair the battery or replace it  with new one since the battery damaged within the warranty period of 6 months.   But there was no response from opposite party NO.1.   This act of opposite party amounts to   not only deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice.  The opposite party No.2  is manufacturer of the battery  purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1. The opposite parties by not repairing or replacing the same with new one  have caused inconvenience , hardship and mental agony to the complainant. Hence is entitled for the compensation also apart from the cost of the battery   purchased. Hence the complaint.

3)                    Opposite party  No.1 despite  receipt of notice of this complaint did  not choose to appear

Opposite party NO.2  filed  written version denying  the complainant’s  version.  The  case of the opposite party No.2 in the written version is  that it is a  reputed company in manufacturing  all electronic  and other home appliances  with high  quality  material and latest technology.  It is  recorded  to   as a  world  leaders in electronics and other appliances and the motto of the company  is customer friendly.  It has got appointed     sales service centers   all over the country.   Service  centre  to  attend  customers  complaints and  company resolves 99.99%  of the complaints.

The opposite party NO.2 company  had provided a  toll free  telephone number  for any complaint by the purchasers of  its products.  Unit  is sold along with  a manual and every dealer of the company provides warranty  card .  The service   centre did not receive any complaint  over its toll free  number regarding non-working  of  battery from the  complainant

In the  quotation dt. 17/11/2016 issued by opposite  party  No.1   no  guarantee , warranty and replacement were printed  prominently.  It is further says that goods once sold  will not be taken back or exchange and the memo was signed by authorized signatory before it was received by the complainant.  The complainant to have  unreasonable  financial gain   has filed the present complaint.  Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4).             In the enquiry stage  the complainant has filed his evidence affidavit  reiterating  the substance of the complainant and he also got exhibited  Xerox copy of quotation from opposite party NO.1 dt.17/11/2016 as exhibit A1.  Mr. Sandeep Sahejwani  stated to be representative  of opposite party No.2  filed his evidence affidavit and the substance of the same is in tune  with the  …… set up  in the written  version.

       Both  sides have filed written  arguments and supplemented  the same with oral submissions.

5)      On a consideration of material on record the following  points have  emerged   for consideration :

  1. Whether  there was  any  deficiency of service on  the  part of the opposite parties to the  complainant and if so the complainant is entitled for the amounts claimed  and  interest thereon?
  2. To what relief?  

6)    Point No.1:-  Complainant’s claim is he purchased  battery manufactured by opposite party No.2  from opposite party NO.1  and Ex.A1 is stated  to be  purchase invoice mentioning  6 months warranty.  In the evidence  affidavit  filed for opposite party No.2  it has been categorically  stated that M/s.R.N. Mobiles  i.e. opposite party No.1 is not an authorized  dealer of opposite party No.2 .  Hence opposite party No.2 can not be held liable for the products sold by an unauthorized     mobile shop.  Inspite of this specific   plea by opposite party NO.2  the complainant   has not placed any documents  on record to show that opposite party No.1 as an authorized  dealer or  retail shop  of opposite party No.2 . Another important aspect is complainant  has not produced any document   to show that so  called defective battery for stated to have  been  purchased  by him  from opposite party No.1 is manufactured by opposite party No.2.            In  fact  he is not filed the invoice  for the purchase of battery from  opposite party No.1 shop.  Exhibit A1 is  only   copy of quotation mentioning   in the price of the product  as Rs.700/-.  By us stretch  of imagination it  can be said  that exhibit A1  is the proof     documentary proof for the purchase of product from opposite party No.1  shop and said  product  was manufactured by the opposite party No.2.  That apart in this Ex. A1  it is clearly  stated that product  is not warranted  and no replacement will be  provided. It mentioned as 6 months  warrantee hand written  by scoring  out the  printing as no warranty and no  replacement and  who has  written as 6 months is not  explained . Since Ex.A1 is not  an invoice for the purchase of the product.  There is no documentary proof from the complainant side for the purchase of battery by the complainant from opposite party No.1 .  Since  purchase of the  alleged product it is not proved  by the complainant question of any deficiency of service  to the complainant  by either of the parties  does not arise.

Complainant’s case is that he delivered the battery to opposite party No.1 who failed to repair it or replace it even as on date of filing of the complaint.  But the complainant also has  not filed any documentary proof for handing over of the  battery by him  to opposite party No.1.  So absolutely there is no  material on the record to prove the purchase of battery manufactured by opposite party No.2 and sold to the complainant through opposite party No.1.  Hence the point is answered against the complainant.

7)          Point No.2: - In the result, the complaint is  dismissed without costs.

                        Dictated to steno transcribed and typed by her pronounced

           by us on this the  8th  day of  October,  2018.

    

MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT           

 

 

                                          APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                            WITNESSES EXAMINED

                                                            -NIL-

Exhibits marked on behalf of the complainant

Ex.A1-  Copy of quotation Dt. 17/11/2011

 

Exhibits  marked on behalf of the Opposite parties.

 

Nil

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                                         PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                          

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. P. Vijender]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. D.Nirmala]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.