Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/75/2018

R.Sreepathi S/o Late E.Raghunatha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Akash Mobiles and Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.G.Ragavendhra

23 Nov 2018

ORDER

  COMPLAINT FILED ON : 28/06/208

     DISPOSED ON: 23/11/2018

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 75/2018 DATED:  23rd NOVEMBER 2018

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                          B.A., LL.B.,

SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,             : LADY MEMBER

 

COMPLAINANT	R.Sreepathi S/o Late E.Raghunatha, R/o Doddaullarthi Village, Challkere Taluk, Chitradurga Dist-577537.   WorkingAddress,: R.Sreepathi, Advocate, Opp New Court, Tejaswini Complex, Somaguddi road, Challkere Town-577522   (Rep by Sri. G.Raghavendra, Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. Akash Mobiles and Electronics, Ramakrishna Complex, Nehru Circle, Challkere-577522.   2. Lava Service Center, Millenium Comp Care,No17, Vanigothra Complex, B.D Road, Chitradurga.   3. Lava Mobile Company, A-56,Sector-64,Noida-201301, Uttar Pradesh.   (Rep by Sri. Chowdappa, Advocate for OP No.1 Sri. K.S. Nataraj, Advocate for OP No.3 and OP No.2 ex-parte)

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH. PRESIDENT.

ORDER

The complainant has filed a complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the OPs for a direction to the OPs to provide new mobile handset of Lava Z90 or to refund the amount of Rs.9,800/- along with interest at 2% p.m, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, tension and harassment, Rs.5,000/- towards cost and damages and to grant such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that, on 24.03.2018 he purchased Lava Z90 bearing IMEI 1:911596251631607 and IMEI 2:911596252209106 from OP No.1 for Rs.9,800/- vide Bill No.958 with GST TIN No.29AESPL0905RTZR.  OP No.3 is the manufacturer of the Lava Mobiles and OP No.1 is the sales agent and OP No.2 is the service centre.  It is further submitted that, since from the day one of purchasing the same, the handset was not working properly, the same was hanging while using and also calls not going properly, for which the complainant personally approached OP No.1, who told that, the OP No.2 is the authorized service centre of OP No.3, who will be repaired.  On 09.04.2018, OP No.2 received the handset for repairs found in the handset and after some hours on the same day, OP No.2 returned the handset with an assurance that, the above defects will completely cured.  After receiving the handset from OP No.2, the same was worked properly only for two days.  As such, the complainant personally met OP No.1 stating the complaints found in the handset, for that, OP No.1 told that, he will informed the same to OP No.2 and 3.  On 16.04.2018 OP No.3 called the complainant through his mobile No.8448087890 and enquired about the status of the complaint, for that the complainant stated about the repeated complaints found in the handset, the OP No.3 assured to cure the said defects.  Again on 24.04.2018 at about 3-56 PM, OP No.3 called the complainant to approach OP No.2 for rectifying the same and as such, the complainant approached OP No.2 along with mobile handset and on the same day itself, OP No.2 returned the same stating that, the defects found in the handset was cured.  But, the above said defects continued till today, which is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice on 15.05.2018 to all the OPs, for that the OP No.1 had given reply on 08.06.2018 admitting all the facts narrated in the legal notice, which is below the standard norms of the manufactured by OP No.3 without admitted his liability and OP No.2 and 3 have not given reply to the notice given by complainant.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 24.03.2018 when the complainant purchased the mobile handset and also on 15.05.2018, the date of issuance of legal notice and hence, prayed for allows the complaint.

 

3. On service of notice to OPs, OP No.1 appeared through Sri. Chowdappa, Advocate and OP No.3 appeared through Sri. K.S. Nataraj and filed their version.  In spite of service of notice, OP No.2 did not appear before this Forum and hence, placed ex-parte.

According to the version filed by the OP No.1 admitting about the purchase of the Lava Z90 mobile hand set from OP No.1 for Rs.9,800/- under Bill No.958 with GST TIN No. 29AESPL0905RTZR and it is further admitted that, the complainant approached them complaining the defects found in the mobile handset, for that, they told to approach OP No.2, the service centre as they are only the sellers.  It is further submitted that, on 09.04.2018 the complainant approached OP No.2 complaining about the defects found in the mobile handset and the same was cured by OP No.2, after two days the same problems found in the mobile handset and again, the complainant approached the OP No.2 to cure the defects found in the handset and on 21.04.2018 the complainant handed over the mobile handset to OP No.2 for repairs and after repairs, the same problems found in the handset are not known to this OP No.1.  It is false to state that the mobile handset purchased by the complainant is defective, the same is concerned to manufacturing and there is deficiency of service on its part and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

According to the version filed by the OP No.3 that, the complainant has purchased Lava Z90 bearing IMEI 1:911596251631607 and IMEI 2:91596252209106 from OP No.1 for a sale consideration amount of Rs.9,800/- on 24.03.2018 vide Bill No.958 with GST TIN No.29AESPL0905RTZR are all not known to this OP and the same is put to strict proof of the same.  It is true that, the OP No.3 is the manufacturer of Lava Z90 Mobiles, but it is false to state that, OP No.1 is the sales agent and OP No.2 is the authorized service centre.  It is not known to this OP that, the above said mobile handset had not been working properly and hanged up while using and calls not going properly, for which the complainant approached OP No.1.  It is further submitted that, on 09.04.2018, OP No.2 received the mobile handset for curing the defects found and OP No.2 assured that would repair the handset and returned the handset with an assurance about curing of the defects are not known to this OP No.3.  It is false to state that, after receiving the said handset from OP No.2, the same was worked properly only for two days and the same problems repeated.  On 16.04.2018 OP No.3 called the complainant through his mobile No.8448087890 and enquired about the status of the complaint, for that the complainant stated about the repeated complaints found in the handset, the OP No.3 assured to cure the said defects.  Again on 24.04.2018 at about 3-56 PM, OP No.3 called the complainant to approach OP No.2 for rectifying the same and as such, the complainant approached OP No.2 along with mobile handset and on the same day itself, OP No.2 returned the same stating that, the defects found in the handset was cured.  But, the above said defects continued till today are all false.  Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice on 15.05.2018 to all the OPs, for that the OP No.1 had given reply on 08.06.2018 admitting all the facts narrated in the legal notice, which is below the standard norms of the manufactured by OP No.3 are all not known to this OP and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.     

        4. Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and documents are marked at Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-8 and closed his side.  On behalf of OP No.1, one Sri Manjunath of OP No.1 has examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and no documents have been got marked and closed their side.     

5.  Arguments heard.

 

6. Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:

 

Point No.1:- Whether the complaint proves that, the OPs have committed deficiency of service in supplying the mobile handset and he is entitled for compensation as stated in his complaint?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

 

        7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:

 

        Point No.1:- Partly Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per the final order.

 

                                        ::REASONS::

 

8. Point No. 1:- It is not in dispute that, on 24.03.2018 complainant has purchased Lava Z90 mobile handset by paying Rs.8,800/- from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.3.   But the said mobile handset was having manufacturing defects i.e., hanged up while using and also calls not going properly and failed to work properly.   Complainant approached OPs several times and requested to set right the problem but, the OPs have failed to cure the problems found in the handset and tried to escape from the liability on one or the other reason. 

 

9.  In support of his contentions, complainant has relied on his affidavit evidence in which he has reiterated the contents of complaint.  Complainant has also relied on documents like copy of Tax Invoice dated 24.03.2018 which shows that, the complainant has purchased Lava Z90 Mobile handset for Rs.9,800/- from the OP No.1, the same is marked as Ex.A-1, Copy of the problem description letter marked as Ex.A-2, Copy of legal notice dated 15.05.2018 marked as Ex.A-3, Postal receipts marked as Ex.A-4, Postal Acknowledgments marked as Ex.A-5, Reply to the legal notice marked as Ex.A-7 and the screenshot photos marked as Ex.A-8, they are not in dispute.  We have carefully gone through the records submitted by complainant. It is seen that, the complainant has purchased above Mobile by paying Rs.9,800/- which is evident from Ex.A-1 Tax Invoice.  As per Ex.A-2, the problem found in the handset is mentioned as hangs up on other application and the warranty to the said product is for two years.  Within a span of few days, the said product was giving problem.  Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs to set right the problem but, OPs failed to set right the same and tried to escape from its liability.    Whenever the OPs sells the products and the warranty period is in force, their duty is to set-right the defects occurred in the said product sold to the customer.   The contention taken by the OP No.1 that, it is only a seller and the complainant has to approach the manufacturer to settle the claim made by the complainant is not acceptable.  The OPs have not produced any documents to show that, there is no deficiency of service on their part.  Moreover the OPs have not disputed about purchase of Lava Z90 mobile by the complainant by paying Rs.9,800/-.  Such being the case, the duty of OPs is to set right the defects found in the said product but, the OPs failed to attend the said defects and cure the same.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, OP No.1 and 3 have played an unfair trade practice by selling defective mobile and committed deficiency of service in curing the defects found in the mobile.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for compensation as claimed.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly Affirmative to the complainant.

 

10.   Point No.2:- For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following.

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is further ordered that the OP No.1 is hereby directed to return an amount of Rs.9,800/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of purchasing the mobile handset till realization.

Further it is ordered that, the OP No.1 is at liberty to recover the same from OP No.3.

Complaint filed as against OP No.2 is hereby dismissed.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 is hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. 

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 

        (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 23/11/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:-  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW.1:- Sri. Manjunath by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Tax invoice dated 24.03.2018
02	Ex-A-2:-	Problem description letter
03	Ex-A-3:-	Legal notice dated 15.05.2018
04	Ex-A-4:-	Three postal receipts
05	Ex.A-5:-	Two postal acknowledgements
06	Ex.A-6:-	Letter dated 08.06.2018 by the complainant to Post Master with RPAD receipt
07	Ex.A-7:-	Reply notice dated 08.06.2018
08	Ex.A-8:-	Screenshot photos

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**