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
- Aaryan’s Mobiles,
Rep.by its Authorized Signatory,
# 6-3-788/A -7, Malgani Creations,
Below Apollo Pharmacy, Opp: Chandana,
Brothers, Ameerpet, Hyderabad – 16.
- 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 :
- 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?
- 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