BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com.,I/C President

              Sri G.Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc., B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR),Member

Tuesday, the 12^th day of November, 2013

CC. No. 08 of 2013

Between:

V. Vasu S/o V. Govindam,

H.No. 9-4-2/1,

Opp: MM court,

Gandhi Chowk: Siddipet,

District Medak. Pin: 502 103,

Mobile: 9441200746.                                            …Complainant-in-person

                   And

1. Big ‘C’ Mobile Show Room,

Shop No. 3, Medak Road,

Siddipet, District Medak – 502 103.

1. Celkon Mobile Company,

Celkon Private Limited,

Ground Floor, A-Block, H.No. 1-98/7/28,

Plot No. 8 Ushassu Sirimalli Nenelabe,

Vittala Rao Nagar, Cell No. 9052345678,

Madhpur, Hyderabad, Pin 500 081.                        ……Opposite parties

                        This case came up for final hearing before us on 01.11.2013 in the absence of complainant-in-person and authorized person for the opposite party no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 notice un-served and steps not taken by complainant, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Per Se Smt. Meena Ramanathan, I/c President)

                     This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to replace the Android mobile phone (worth Rs. 4.610/-) with a new one and to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards expenditure incurred to visit service centre and costs of the litigation.

Brief averments of the complainant:

                   The complainant submits that he had purchased a Celkon A1 Android mobile phone on 10.03.2012 from Big ‘C’ mobile show room located at Siddipet. Eversince purchase of that mobile phone, it’s started giving various problems and the features advertised by the company were also not present in this mobile phone. He approached the Big ‘C’ show room for necessary repair but the show room advised to visit the authorized service center of Celkon company at Hyderabad accordingly he visited twice and given his mobile phone for repairs. Despite all this, still the problems of the mobile phone has not been attended by them. As a result his business got affected and he suffered mental agony. He, therefore, sought redressal before this Forum.

2.              The opposite party no. 1 had filed his written version through its show room manager in which he stated that the cost of the A1 Celkon mobile phone was Rs. 4,380/-. The bill amount is inclusive of 4 GB memory card, 5% vat together the bill value is Rs. 4,848/-. He also submits that he has no knowledge of the problems of the complainant’s mobile phone till he received the notice vide dis no. 90/2013, dated 20.02.2013 from this Forum. On receiving the notice, immediately he made enquiry with authorized service center i.e. M/s Sri Sai Communications and according to them the complainant had approached very first time on 14^th September, 2012 i.e. after six months of comfortable usage of mobile phone. He also denies that he had suggested the authorized service center, Hyderabad. Further the mobile phone may not function well in a number of ways viz., by dropping or sitting on a Mobile phone or when the mobile phone is subject to pressure or when it is exposed to extreme heat and cold temperatures or when put in water or other liquids. The Android software might have get damaged in the mobile phone when the customer made applications, downloads from the unauthorized portals or it might have affected virus. The defects alleged by the complainant might have been caused due to physical damages to the mobile phone or negligent acts of the complainant for which the warranty does not apply. Either the manufacturer or this opposite party no. 1 cannot be held responsible for the defects caused due to physical damages.

                   It is submitted that it is the manufacturer, who provides the warranty for the mobile phones and further authorizes the Authorized service centers to carry out the after sales service/repairs if in case of any defect that arises during warranty period. Manufacturer’s Authorized Service Centres are run by certified Engineers/Technicians, equipped with genuine spare parts and service equipments. This opposite party no. 1 is only a retailer and it is involved in the business of sale of various brands of mobile phones including Celkon and that they are no way concerned with its manufacturing units, or with the warranty provided by the manufacturer. The opposite party also prayed that this Hon’ble Forum to send the mobile phone of the complainant for expert opinion as required under Section 13(.C) of the Consumer Protection Act. Complainant made false allegations with a view to extract more monies from this opposite party no. 1 in the event of succeeding in the present complaint. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

3.        The complainant evidence documents were marked as Exs. A1 to A3 and the opposite party no. 1 had not filed any document, whereas, there was no representation from opposite party no. 2 since the notice was un-served and steps were not taken by the complainant and both the parties not filed written arguments or argued before the bench. Hence the Forum opined to decide the case based on the material available.

4.           Now, the point for consideration is, Whether is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? If so, To What relief?

Point:

5.            The complainant’s Ex.A1 is the cash bill dated 10^th March, 2012 for an amount of Rs. 4,898/- for the purchase of A1 Celkon mobile with 4 GB micro silicon power, including the insurance amount. The Ex. A2 is the customer receipt bearing Sl.no. 5141 dated 29.11.2012, which shows the problems reported as “Touch not working, auto off, battery backup and back cap problem”. Finally the Ex. A3 is the Certificate of Mobile Phone Insurance dated 10.03.2012 issued by National Insurance Company Limited.

6.            The complaint is about regular problems in working of the mobile phone and features are not present as advertised and according to the instructions, he approached the authorized service center at Hyderabad, twice for the repairs, yet the phone suffers with the same problem. The opposite party no. 1 had taken a stand that the manufacturer provides the warranty for the mobiles phone and recommends repairs with the authorized centres during the warranty period and he is only a retailer as such he is no way concerned with manufacturer unit (opposite party no. 2). The opposite party no. 1 also submits that the mobile phone to be sent to an expert for proper opinion as required under Sec 13(.C) of the Consumer Protection Act.

7.                  The opposite party no. 1 as a retailer and dealer of the mobile phones manufactured by the opposite party no. 2, has a better say in dealing with such problems of the customers to ensure proper customer care and to develop the reputation of his business. The complainant after usage for six months, he visited the authorized agent for necessary repairs as per the advise in the form of stamped instructions on Ex. A1 (cash bill). Though the complainant not produced warranty period card, but from the circumstances it can be presumed to be in the warranty period only. The opposite party no. 1 (Big ‘C’ showroom) seems to be a prominent business firm, which should have taken up the problem with the opposite party no. 2 moreover as dealer he knows the address of his supplier/manufacturer. On knowing about the case against him, the opposite party no. 1 should have obtained the expert report from the authorized service center as it was managed by certified engineers / technicians, equipped with genuine spare parts and service equipments, according to his own words under para (9) of his written version (page 3). So in the instant case, the problem of the customer was not attended by the shopkeeper/opposite party no. 1/ business firm, amounting to deficiency in service. The opposite party no. 1 is at fault and the complainant deserves some compensation.

8.             In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party no. 1 is directed to replace the CELKON A1 mobile phone worth of Rs. 5,000/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for the mental agony and hardship caused and also to pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the litigation. Time for compliance is one month, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

        Dictated to Stenographer, after transcription and correction the order is pronounced by us in the open court today on this the 12^th day of November, 2013.

Sd/-                                                            Sd/- 

MALE MEMBER                                        I/C PRESIDENT   

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                              WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the complainant:                                                   For the opposite parties:-

                Sd/-                                                               Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                                         I/C PRESIDENT

Copy to

1. The Complainant
2. The Opp.parties
3. Spare copy