Date of filing: 07.07.2014.

                                                                                       Date of disposal: 12.11.2014.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – II:

VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT

Present: Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., President (FAC)

     Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L.,        Member

Wednesday, the 12^th day of November, 2014

C.C.No.149 of 2014

Between:

Yejjipurapu Durga Rao, S/o Y. Papinaidu, D.No.22-15/1-88/57, Bhanu Nagar, Cement Road, Near Sai Baba Temple, S.N. Puram, Vijayawada – 520 011.

                                                   …..Complainant.

                                                                                                                       And

1.  Big C Mobiles Pvt., Ltd., Rep: by its Manager, D.No.28-9-23, Jaleel Street, Maszid Street,   Arundalpet, Vijayawada – 520 002, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. 

2.  Hari Communications, Rep: by its Proprietor D.No.28-19-4, Janda Street, Arundalpet,   Eluru Road, Vijayawada – 520 002, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. 

3.  Celkon Implex Pvt., Ltd., Rep: by its Managing Director, 3^rd Floor, 2^nd Block, My Home Hab, Madapur, Hyderabad – 520 081.

                                             .. … Opposite parties.

          This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 05.11.2014, in the presence of complainant in-person; opposite parties 1 and 3 absent and 2^nd opposite party appear and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:

O R D E R

(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)

This complaint is filed by complainant in person under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 directing the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile with a new mobile, directing them to pay Rs.3000000/-  towards mental agony and costs of Rs.1000/-.

1.         The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

            The complainant submitted that he purchased a Cellkon mobile hand set from 1^st opposite party on14-01-2013 for Rs.8,000/-.  But few days of its purchase, the hand set developed problems i.e. hand set becomes very hot while it is charging, hanging, play service error etc.  The complainant informed the same to 2^nd opposite party who is authorized service center.  But they did not identity the problem and rectified the same in spite of repeated demands made by complainant.  The complainant got issued a legal notice dt.6.4.2014 demanding the opposite parties to replace the defective hand set with a defect free one, but of no use.  Hence the complainant is constrained to file the present complaint.

 2.        After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties 1 and 3 not made appearance and called absent.  On 26-8-2014 the 2^nd opposite party present and stated before this Forum that they will give new cell to the complainant.

3.         The complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A6. None of them were examined on behalf of opposite parties as they were called absent

4.         Heard complainant and perused the record.

5.         Now the point that arises for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 in selling defective mobile to complainant?

1. If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

Point No.1 : 

6.         On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavit and documents), it is clear that the complainant has purchased Cellkon mobile from the 1^st opposite party who is a dealer which was admittedly manufactured by 3^rd opposite party for Rs.8,000/- on 14.1.2013.  Ex.A1 cash bill issued by 1^st opposite party establishes the same.  The main grievance of the complainant is that after few days of its purchase, the hand set developed problems i.e. hand set becomes very hot while its charging, handing, play service errors etc., and he approached the 2^nd opposite party who is authorized service center for repairs, but of no use. The complainant having vexed with the attitude of opposite parties issued notice under Ex.A3 which were dispatched under Ex.A6.  Ex.A4 and A5 are the postal acknowledgments evidencing receipt of notice by opposite parties 1 and 2.  Perusal of Ex.A1 Job sheet discloses that the hand set was given to 2^nd opposite party on 6.12.2013 with a problem of “software, data service, sometimes white display”.     In this case, the complainant has not filed any warranty card to show whether the warranty is in force or not.  However the 2^nd opposite party after receipt of notice appeared before this Forum on 26.8.2014 and stated that they will given a new cell to the complainant.  In these circumstances, it is need less to go through the other contentions of complainant.  The admission of 2^nd opposite party before this Forum discloses that there is a manufacturing defect in the hand set.  As such the non rectification of defect by the 2^nd opposite party who is authorized service center amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 2 and 3 who are manufacturer and authorized service center. Hence, complainant is entitled for replacement of new cell phone in the place of defective one and fresh warranty besides costs of Rs.500/-.  But perusal of record discloses that the complainant has not mentioned whether the cell phone is with the 2^nd opposite party or him. 

7.         According to Section 2(1) (f) of the Consumer Protection Act any fault or imperfection or short coming in its quality, potency, performance or standard which is required to be maintained by under any Law for the time being in force or as is claimed by a trader in any manner whatever in relation to any goods comes within the mischief of defective goods.  As per Section 14(1) & 2(b) the buyer is entitled to remedy by way of either removed the defect or by way of replacing the goods with similar description or by way of return of the price or charges paid by the consumer.

Point No.2: 

8.         In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 2 and 3 jointly and severally to provide a new cell phone with same description and fresh warranty to the complainant besides payment of costs of Rs.500/- within 15 days.  If the cell phone is with the complainant, he is directed to submit the same to 2^nd opposite party within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.  If the cell phone is with the 2^nd opposite party, he is directed to retain the same with him.  The other claims of complainant shall stands dismissed.

Typewritten by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 12^th day of November, 2014.

PRESIDENT (FAC)                                                                                                 MEMBER

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For the complainant: -None-                                          For the opposite party: -None-

Documents marked

On behalf of the complainant:               

Ex.A1                                     Photocopy of servicing working bill. 

Ex.A2             14.01.2013    Photocopy of  cash bill.

Ex.A3             06.04.2014    Photocopy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OPs.

Ex.A4                                     Photocopy of postal acknowledgement.

Ex.A5                                     Photocopy of postal acknowledgement.

Ex.A6                                     Photocopy of postal receipts. 

On behalf of the opposite parties: - Nil-

               PRESIDENT (FAC).