Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/38/2016

Mohammed Baba Malik, S/o Mohammed Magbul - Complainant(s)

Versus

Adithya Mobile Service Centre, By its authorised signatory, - Opp.Party(s)

G.Ramaiah Pillai

29 Sep 2016

ORDER

 

 

                                                                                                Filing Date:-23-04-2016                                                                                                               Order Date:  29-09-2016

     BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,    

                                                CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                       Smt. T. Anitha, Member

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO

THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

C.C.No.38/2016

Between

Mohammed Baba Malik, M.sc. Food Tech,

S/o. Mohammed Magbul,

Muslim, aged 26 years,

Senior Quality Executive – Quality In Charge,

Padila Agro Private Limited,

Industrial Estate Settipalli,

Renigunta Road,

Tirupati – 517506.                                                                            … Complainant

 

And

1.Adhitya Mobile Service Centre,

By its Authorized Signatory,

Computerized Service Centre,

Shop No.7, Municipal Complex,

Indira Maidan, Back side Municipal Office,

Tirupati. Phone No. 08772556677.

 

2. PANASONIC INDIA LIMITED,

By its Authorized Signatory,

12^th Floor, Ambience Tower,

Ambience Island, NH-8,

Gurgaon – 122002,

Haryana, India.                                                                              … Opposite parties

               This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 06.09.2016 and upon perusing the complaint, written arguments of the complainant a opposite party and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for the complainant and opposite party is remained exparte having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

            This complaint is filed under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties for selling defective mobile phone and prayed this Forum to pass an order directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to deliver the original cell of the complainant in working condition or to refund the cost of the mobile of Rs.12,500/- and also to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency of service and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

           2. The brief facts of the case are:  The complainant purchased mobile cell Panasonic Model ELUGA on 13.03.2015 from Sri Srinivasa Mobiles bearing no.IMEI-1, 356537060159630 and IMEI-2, 356537060659639  under receipt No.773 with warranty of one year, for the replacement of the defective parts in the mobile cell and later the said mobile shop was vacated from the above said address and the complainant further submits that from the date of the purchase the said mobile is not working because of sim problem and he approached the opposite party no.1 who is the authorized service centre to rectify the defect. But they advised him to hand over the mobile to them that they will send to the opposite party no.2 who is the manufacturing company for the replacement of the defective parts. After four months i.e.25.01.2016 the opposite party no.1 informed the complainant that the parcel was received by them from the manufacturing company. The complainant went to the opposite party no.1 and asked them to open the parcel in front of him, the complainant was shocked when he saw the mobile in the parcel which was sent by the opposite party no.2 is of different model mobile phone instead of the mobile handed over by him and also the above said mobile is not having the battery. Hence he refused to receive the said phone and asked them to return the same model which was handed over by him for repair. But after repeated requests made by the complainant the opposite party failed to return the mobile or to rectify the defects in his cell phone. Hence he caused a legal notice calling upon the opposite parties to deliver the original cell after rectifying defect or replacement of the defective parts or to refund the costs of the mobile. But after receipt of the said notices the opposite parties failed to return the same which is nothing but deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties. Hence he filed the present complaint.

          3.  The opposite parties failed to appear before this Forum even after receipt of the notice. Hence opposite parties called absent and set exparte.

         4.  The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex.A1to A6 were marked. Written arguments of the complainant filed and oral arguments were heard.

         5.  Now the points for consideration are:

              (i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties    

                     towards the complainant?            

             (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? If so? To

                       what extent?           

             (iii) To what Result?

           6.Point No:-(i). As per the contention of the complainant, from the date of purchase the said cell phone is not working properly hence he approached the opposite party no.1 several times for getting it repaired. But they did not render the service properly by rectifying the defect in said cell phone. At last the complainant handed over the cell phone to the opposite party no.1 and the opposite party sent the same to the opposite party no.2 to get the new cell phone in the place of old, because the said phone is having manufacturing defect. On 25.01.2016 the complainant received a call from the  opposite party no.1 that they received parcel from opposite party no.2,  the complainant surprised that when he opened the said parcel in front of opposite party no.1 the above said parcel consists of the mobile phone of different model, hence the complainant requested  them to hand over the mobile which is of the same model handed over by him  and he approached the opposite party no.1 several times to get his mobile phone but the opposite parties failed to return his mobile phone even after several requests made by the complainant. Hence it seems that the cell phone might have sustained manufacturing defect otherwise they will not take the steps to send to the mobile phone to the opposite party no.2 who is the manufacturing company. It clearly shows that the said cell phone is having defect which cannot be rectified. Hence, the cell phone purchased by the complainant is defective in nature. After receipt of the notices of this Forum the opposite parties failed to appear before this Forum and challenged the contentions of the complainant. That itself clearly shows that there is a deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties to rectify the defect and also rendering the service to their customers. The interest   shown by the opposite party while promoting their sales is not shown at the time of rendering servicers to the customers. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

           7. Point(ii):-   in view of our finding on point no.1 the complainant is entitled for the price of the cell phone of Rs.12,500/- (rupees twelve thousand five hundred only)along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of realization and for Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and for mental agony and deficiency in service suffered by the complainant  and also Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

          8.Point (iii):-    In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to refund the cost of the mobile of  Rs.12,500/- (rupees twelve thousand five hundred only) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization. The opposite party further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousands only)  towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency of service and to pay Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The opposite party further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which the compensation amount of Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousand only) shall also carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.   

         Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 29^th day of September, 2016.    

        Sd/-                                                                                                                        Sd/-                                                                                                    

  Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:Mohammad Baba Malik  (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

-NIL-

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Receipt in original for Rs.12,500/- towards purchase of the Cell Panasonic ELUGA from Sri Srinivasa Mobiles , Shop No.121, Gandhi Road, Tirupati. Dt: 13.03.2015.
	Appointment Order of the complainant as Senior Quality Executive- Quality In Charge, Padila Agro Private Limited, Industrial Estate, Settipalli, Renigunta Road, Tirupati. Dt: 21.03.2015 (Original).
	Customer Receipt under Service Job Sheet for handing over mobile cell to Opposite Party No.1. Dt: 01.09.2015 (True Copy).
	Office copy of Legal Notice to Opposite Parties 1 and 2. Dt: 14.02.2016.
	Office copy of Letter to the Superintendent of Post Office, Tirupati. Dt: 14.03.2016.
	Reply letter from the Superintendent of Post Office, Tirupati. Dt: 24.03.2016.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

 

    

                                                                                                                           Sd/-

        President

 

 

                                                                 // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                                 Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati

 

 

Copies to:  The Complainant.

                  The Opposite parties.