Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

cc/236/2011

Kandregula Naga Manikyala Naidu - Complainant(s)

Versus

BIG C Mobiles Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

C.R. Vasantha Kumar

17 Sep 2014

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:01-07-2011

                                                                                                Date of Order:17-09-2014

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:      

1. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     President (FAC)  

                                2. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                    Male Member

 

                     Wednesday, the 17^th day of September, 2014.

                                 CONSUMER CASE No.236/2011

Between:-

Sri Kandregula Naga Manikyala Naidu,

S/o Adhi Narayana, Hindu, aged 34 years,

LIG-II-40, APHB Colony, Pothinamallayya Palem,

Visakhapatnam-530041.

….. Complainant

And:-

1.BIG C Mobiles Private Limited, represented by its

   Managing Director, Opp. India Post,

   Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam-530 020.

2.MICRO MAX Informatics Ltd.,

   Represented by its Managing Director,

   9/52/1, Kirtinagar Ind Area, New Delhi-110015.

                                                                                       …  Opposite Parties     

                     

          This case coming on 03.09.2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri C.V. Vasantha Kumar, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri S.S. Mohana Rao, Advocate for the Opposite Parties and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri. C.V. Rao, Honourable Male Member, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The Complainant asks the Forum to pass order in his favour and against the Opposite Parties as follows: i) To direct the Opposite Parties to refund the cost of the handset i.e., Rs.2,200/- (Rupees two thousand and two hundred only) along with interest at 24% per annum from 09.08.2010 till the date of payment; ii) To pay for compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) for causing mental agony and financial hardship; iii) To pay for costs of this complaint at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and such other relief or reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the Complainant.

 

2.       The 1^st Opposite Party did not resist the claim of the Complainant as it was set exparte and remained set exparte.   Though the 2^nd Opposite Party got Vakalat filed on its behalf, it did not file any counter and thus it too did not resist the claim of the Complainant.

 

 3.      The case of the Complainant, as can be seen from the complaint, is that the Complainant purchased a mobile handset manufactured by the 2^nd Opposite Party MIRCRO MAX MOBILE C112 CDMA Model, bearing IMEI No.A100000E6BCC6, through the 1^st Opposite Party who is the dealer of the 1^st Opposite Party (sic), as per Cash Bill 0327212, Bill No.SI/DAB/9938, dated 09.08.2010 for valuable consideration of Rs.2,200/- (Rupees two thousand and two hundred only).    The Opposite Parties gave warranty of one year against all manufacturing defects and the same was printed on the bill issued to the Complainant.   The Complainant stated that when the mobile phone started giving troubles such as automatically switch off etc. the Complainant had approached the 1^st Opposite Party on 27.08.2010 and upon the advice of the 1^st Opposite Party, the Complainant had approached the nearest authorized service cell centre “ARUN CELL CARE”  for identification of problem in the new handset.     The service centre personnel have identified the defects as Software Problem and they have advised the Complainant to keep the defective phone for rectification of its defect, as per Job Card No.6933, dated 27.08.2010 and the mobile phone was completely dead.   The Complainant received back the handset after its repair on 13.09.2010, but once again the handset developed other defects and as such, the Complainant once again approached the authorized service centre “ARUN CELL CARE” on 17.09.2010 and they have issued Customer Job Card bearing No.7494, wherein the service centre personnel have mentioned key pad problem and no battery backup and the mobile was delivered back to the Complainant on 23.09.2010.   The mobile set  developed the problem once again and the Complainant handed over the mobile set to the service centre on 08.10.2010 as per Customer Job Card No.8205, wherein the service personnel have mentioned the problems in the battery and key pad and to the dead condition of the mobile and after one month the service centre returned mobile by stating that the problem could not be rectified.   The Complainant had approached the 1^st Opposite Party for replacement of the mobile and when the 1^st Opposite Party failed to heed the request of the Complainant, the Complainant addressed a letter to the head office of the 1^st Opposite Party at Hyderabad and to the 2^nd Opposite Party, but both the letters have returned with remarks “Left without Instruction” and as such, the Complainant is constrained to file the complaint before this Forum for redressal of the Complainant’s grievances.   The Complainant stated that on account of the defective mobile handset, the Complainant was forced to purchase another mobile set by incurring a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) and the Complainant had to run around the shop of the 1^st Opposite Party and the service centre of the 2^nd Opposite Party several times due to the manufacturing defect in the mobile handset.   The Complainant further stated that he is put to severe mental agony and financial hardship on account of the defective handset and due to the failure of the Opposite Parties either to replace the mobile handset or to refund its costs, and the Complainant  is also put to financial loss by purchasing another mobile handset and as such the Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the Complainant at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).

 

4.       The Complainant filed an affidavit, besides written arguments to support his claim.   Exs. A1 to A8 are marked for the Complainant.

 

5.       The matter has been heard on behalf of the Complainant.

 

6.         After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the Complainant purchased the mobile phone in question on 09.08.2010 paying an amount of Rs.2,200/- to the 1^st Opposite Party as per Ex.A1 Cash Bill. The warranty for a period of six months for battery and charger and one year for mobile phone was stamped on Ex.A2 manual.   Within 18 days i.e., on 27.08.2010, the mobile became dead and was handed over to the Authorized Service Centre as per Ex.A3 Customer Job Card.   After repair, it was handed back to the Complainant, but again there was trouble and the mobile phone was once again handed over on 17.09.2010 to the authorized Service Centre as per Ex.A4 Customer Job Card.   After repair it was handed over to the Complainant herein.   But within days on 8.10.2010 the instrument was once again given for repair to the Authorized Service Centre as per Ex.A5.   It was given back to the Complainant in not working condition as the authorized centre was unable to repair it.   Subsequently, the Complainant gave a notice to the Opposite Parties, seeking replacement, but there was no response.   Now also after the Complainant approached this Forum, the Opposite Parties are indifferent as the 1^st Opposite Party did not appear before this Forum, after receiving the notice from this Forum and the 2^nd Opposite Party though got Vakalat filed on its behalf did not care to file any counter.   In these circumstances, we hold that there is outright deficiency of service coupled with unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2, as they sold the defective mobile phone to the Complainant and did not take any steps either to repair or to replace the same.   The deficiency of service coupled with unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties should have caused much physical hardship and mental agony to the Complainant.   Moreover, because of the attitude of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2, the Complainant was holding a defective phone for the last so many years for no purpose.   The circumstances show that the Complainant incurred much loss on all counts.   As such, the Complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the defective mobile phone with interest from the date of its purchase.  Moreover, as he suffered physical hardship and mental agony because of the deficiency of service coupled with unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, he is entitled to suitable compensation also.   As the Complainant is forced to file this complaint because of the deficiency of service-cum-unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, he is entitled to costs of this complaint too.

         

7.       In the result, this Forum directs the Opposite Parties 1 and 2: a) to refund the amount of Rs.2,200/- (Rupees two thousand and two hundred only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from 09.08.2010 till the date of actual realization, and to pay b) a compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) and c) Costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the Complainant.   Time for compliance, one month.

 

 

 

 

 

          After receiving the above amounts from the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has to return the defective cell phone to the Opposite Parties.

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 17^th day of September, 2014.

Sd/-                                                                                     Sd/-            

President                                                                           Male Member

 

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A1	09.08.2010	Cash Bill issued by the 1st OP to Complainant	Original.
Ex.A2	09.08.2010	Warranty issued by the 2nd OP	Original
Ex.A3	27.08.2010	Customer Job Card	Photo copy
Ex.A4	17.19.2010	Customer Job Card	Photo copy
Ex.A5	08.10.2010	Customer Job Card	Photo copy
Ex.A6		Letter from Complainant to 2nd OP	Office copy
Ex.A7		Retuned envelop sent to the office of the 1st OP at Hyderabad	Original
Ex.A8		Retuned envelop sent to the 2nd OP	Original

For the Opposite Parties:-                                  

                                      -Nil-

Sd/-                                                                           Sd/-  

President                                                                                Male Member