THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, M.A., L.L.M., President,
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Friday the 13TH day of February, 2015
C.C.No.111/2013
Between:
S.Muneer,
S/o Khaja Mohiddin,
Aged about 38 Years, Business,
R/o H.No.10-100-1, Babugounda Street,
Osmania College Road,
Kurnool District-518 001. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. Anwar Times,
Represented by its Manager,
Authorized Dealer for Samsung, Nokia and Sony Ericsson Mobiles,
Shop No.7 & 8, Abdullah Khan Estate,
Opp. Z.P.Office, Kurnool-518 001.
2. The Manager,
Customer Satisfaction,
Sai Gautam Services,
ShopNo.109 & 110, Soma Arcade,
Opp:Kalkura Hotel, Raj Theatre Road,
Kurnool-518 001. …OPPOSITE PARTIES
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.D.Mohammad Rafi, Advocate for complainant and opposite party No.1 called absent and set exparte and Sri. Poluri Bhaskar, and Sri.B.Jyothi Prakash, Advocates for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member,)
C.C. No.111/2013
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying:-
- To direct to the opposite parties to replace the new mobile without
any defect,
(OR)
To pay Rs.7,650/- costs of the mobile.
- To grant interest at 24% per annum from the date of problem i.e.,
on 13.07.2013 till the date of realization.
- To grant damages of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony.
- To grant any other relief as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the complainant in brief is as under:- The opposite party No.1 is the Manager of Anwar Times at Kurnool and opposite party No.2 is the service in charge of Samsung Authorized Service Centre at Kurnool. The complainant purchased GT-S6102 model Sumsung Mobile from opposite party No.1 for Rs.7,650/- as invoice No.1127 dated 29.06.2013. A warranty card for a period one year was issued in favour of the complainant. After purchase the said mobile used the complainant, but it was not properly functioning. The complainant contacted opposite party No.2 for rectification of problem of the said mobile dated 06.07.2013. The opposite party No.2 returned the same after servicing the mobile, Again and again the problem arose in the said mobile dated 13.07.2013, 05.08.2013 and 13.08.2013. Finally on 13.08.2013 the opposite party No.2 assured that the mother Board of the mobile was changed and the mobile was working properly but the defects were not rectified. The complainant contacted to the opposite party No.1 and demanded the opposite party No.1 to exchange the mobile. But opposite party No.1 recklessly bluntly refused the request of complainant. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 24.08.2013 to opposite parties to replace the mobile or to return the purchase amount of mobile, the opposite party No.1 gave reply notice with false allegations dated 01.09.2013. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1 called absent and set exparte.
Opposite party No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is admitted that the complainant purchased GT-S6102 Model Sumsung Mobile on 29.06.2013 from opposite party No.1 for Rs.7,650/-. It is submitted that these is no record with regard to complaint dated 06.07.2013, 13.07.2013, 05.08.2013. The complainant was attended on 13.08.2013 with a complaint that the mobile was not functioning and it was rectified properly by opposite party No.2 and the set is working in good condition. There is no manufacturing defect in the handset in dispute and the opposite parties are not liable to either replacement or refund of the cost of the mobile and also damages. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 are marked and sworn affidavit of complainant is filed. On behalf of opposite parties filed sworn affidavit of opposite party No.2 is filed. No document is marked.
5. Complainant and opposite party No.2 filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. Points i and ii:- Admittedly the complainant purchased GT-S6102 Model Samsung Mobile from opposite party No.1 for Rs.7,650/- dated 29.06.2013. A warranty card for a period of one year was issued in favour of the complainant. The purchased Bill invoice No.1127 is marked as Ex.A1 and warranty card is marked as Ex.A2. The complainant in his sworn affidavit stated that within one month of its purchase, the problem arose in the said mobile on 06.07.2013 and it was rectified by opposite party No.2. Again and again the problem arose on various dates 13.07.2013, 05.08.2013, at last on 13.08.2013 the complainant gave it to opposite party No.2 for repairs. Ex.A3 is the work order receipt by opposite party No.2 dated 13.08.2013. Ex.A4 is the Samsung Galaxy Dous Instrument Box. Though the mother board was changed by opposite party No.2 the defects were not rectified. So the complainant contacted to opposite party No.1 and requested to replace it with new one, but the opposite party No.1 bluntly refused the same. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 24.08.2013 to the opposite parties, which is marked as Ex.A5 and the postal receipt is marked as Ex.A6. The opposite party No.1 has given Reply Notice dated 01.09.2013, it is marked as Ex.A7 and the postal acknowledgement is marked as Ex.A8. The opposite party No.2 did not gave any reply for the notice of the complainant. The opposite party No.2 stated in his sworn affidavit that there is no record for the alleged complaints in regard to the said mobile dated 06.07.2013, 13.07.2013, 05.08.2013. The complainant approached to opposite party No.2 on 13.08.2013 with a complaint that Cell Phone was not working and opposite party No.2 rectified it. There is neither manufacturing defect nor any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2. It is further submitted that the opposite party No.2 has offered for replacement of unit. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2. Admittedly the complainant purchased Cell Phone GT-S6102 for Rs.7,650/- under Ex.A1. The opposite parties provided one year warranty under Ex.A2. Admittedly the problem was arose within a period of warranty. As per the Ex.A3 it is evident that the mobile phone got trouble and rectified it by opposite party No.2. Though the mother board was changed it was not rectified within warranty period. The complainant got issued legal notice to opposite parties, for replacement of cell phone or to return the purchase amount. The opposite party No.2 did not gave any reply but opposite party No.1, gave reply and insist the complainant to issue notice to company and opposite party No.1 is not liable for any replacement. Opposite party No.1 is the dealer of Sumsung Cell Phones and opposite party No.2 is the authorized service centre to the company. The opposite parties ought to have sent the defective unit to the company and brought the new unit in the place of defective cell phone. We found that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Due to the negligent attitude of opposite parties, the complainant suffered mental agony.
8. Point No.iii:- The complainant prayed to direct the opposite parties to return the price of Cell Phone Rs.7,650/- with interest at 24% per annum from the date of problem i.e., 13.07.2013 to till the date of payment or to replace the new Cell Phone in similar model and further Rs.50,000/- for mental agony. It is too excessive, there is no basis as record to grant Rs.50,000/- for mental agony. We persued all the material available on record the facts and circumstances of the case we hold an opinion that the complainant is entitled for the price amount of Rs.7,650/- with interest at 9% or to replace the Cell Phone in similar model and Rs.2,000/- for mental agony.
9. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to return the new Cell Phone in Similar Model or to return the price of Cell Phone Rs.7,650/- with interest at 9% from the date of purchase i.e., on 29.06.2013 till the date of payment. The complainant has to return the defective Cell Phone to the opposite parties on the replacement of new Cell Phone or return the purchase amount. The opposite parties further direct to pay Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs of the case. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 13th day of February, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite parties:- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Tax Invoice Bill No.1127 dated 29.06.2013 for Rs.7,650/-.
Ex.A2 Consumer Details cum Warranty Card
Ex.A3 Work Order receipt issued by opposite party No.2 dated
13.08.2013.
Ex.A4 Samsung Galaxy Duos (Instrument) box
Ex.A5 Office copy of Legal Notice dated 24.08.2013.
Ex.A6 Postal Receipts (Nos.2).
Ex.A7 Reply Notice issued by opposite party No.1 dated 01.09.2013.
Ex.A8 Postal Acknowledgements (Nos.2).
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
