Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/410/2011

Koneti Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Big C Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

T Jeevan

21 Nov 2014

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:30-09-2011   

                                                                                                Date of Order:21-11-2014

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

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

     Lady Member 

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

                                     Male Member

 

                        Friday, the 21^th day of November, 2014.

                             CONSUMER CASE No.410 of 2011

Between:-

Koneti Suresh Kumar, S/o Mohana Rao,

Hindu, aged 35 years, Resident of Door

No.2/0 E, Sector-  , Ukkunagaram,

Visakhapatnam-530 032.

                                                                                        ….. Complainant

And:-

1.The Proprietor, Big-C Mobile Private Limited,

   having its Shop at Door No.10-4-119, Aditya

   Complex, Opp: Srikanya Theater, Main Road

   Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam-02.

2.The Managing Director, Celkon Implex Private

   Limited, having its Office at Ground Floor, “A”

   Block, House No.1-98/7/28, Plot No.8 & 9,

   Ushasul Sirimalle Enclave, Vitalrao Nagar,

   Madhapur, Hyderabad-081.

                                                                                   …  Opposite Parties

                         

This case coming on 03.11.2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri     T. Jeevan, Advocate for the Complainant and appeared inperson of the 1^st Opposite Party and the 2^nd Opposite Party being exparte and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

        (As per Smt. K. Saroja Honourable Lady Member on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant purchased Samsung Mobile Handset (Color) Model S5620 Monte bearing IMEI-M: 355214044853518 from the 1^st Opposite Party for Rs.7,306/-  on 04.07.2011.   The 1^st Opposite Party issued invoice on the same day with one year warranty.   From very beginning of its purchases the mobile was not working properly, while the Complainant was receiving phone calls automatically handset turn up in switched off mode.    On 20.07.2011 the said mobile became dead.   On the same day, the Complainant approached the 1^st Opposite Party and requested him to rectify the problem and hand over the mobile phone to the 1^st Opposite Party, issued Job Sheet bearing No.5, dated 20.07.2011 stating that they will be rectified the problem and returned the same.   Inspite of many requests made by the Complainant, the 1^st Opposite Party did not rectify the problem in the handset or returned it to the Complainant till now.   Then the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 29.08.2011.   The 2^nd Opposite Party received the same and failed to give reply, the 1^st Opposite Party refused to receive the notice.   Hence, this Complaint.

 

2.       a) To direct the Opposite Parties to handover Samsung Mobile Handset (Color) Model S5620 Monte, bearing IMEI-M: No.355814044853518 with good condition or else to provide new handset instead of old one;

b) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation, mental suffering, mental agony and loss of valuable time of the Complainant caused by the Opposite Parties;

c) To direct the Opposite Party to pay sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards Advocate fee and costs of this Complainant; and

d) Such other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

 

3.        The 2^nd Opposite Party did not appear before this Forum.   Hence, it  was set exparte and remained exparte.

 

          The 1^st Opposite Party strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from its counter.

 

4.       The 1^st Opposite Party stated that t0 avoid unnecessary reputation litigation, and repudiation of the 1^st Opposite Party, this Opposite Party is ready to give the Complainant a new mobile phone of the same model.  So, they have no liability to give any reliefs asked by the Complainant.

 

 

5.       At the time of enquiry, the Complainant filed an affidavit as well as written arguments to support his contentions.            Exs.A1 to A6 are marked for the Complainant.   No documents were marked for the Opposite Party as the 1^st Opposite Party did not file any affidavit as well as written arguments and documents.   Heard the Complainant.

 

6.       ExA1 is the Invoice dated 4.7.2011,   Ex.A2 is the warranty Card.  Ex.A3 is the Job Work Sheet.   Ex.A4 is the Registered Lawyer’s Notice  dated 29.08.2009.  Ex.A5 Acknowledgement Cover of the 1^st Opposite Party and Ex.A6 is the Acknowledgment Card of the 2^nd Opposite Party.

 

7.       The fact shown from Ex.A1 reveals that the Complainant purchased Sumsung Mobile on 4.7.2011 from the 1^st Opposite Party.  The mobile phone has given with one year warranty.  Ex.A3 reveals that the Complainant hand over the mobile phone to the 1^st Opposite Party as the mobile is in dead condition.   The 1^st Opposite Party also noted in the complaint column as handset dead.

 

8.       The point that would arise for determination in the case is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

 

9.         After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the 1^st Opposite Party filed a counter on 15.11.2011 stating that to avoid unnecessary litigation and reputation of the 1^st Opposite Party, the 1^st Opposite Party is ready to give a new mobile phone of the same model to the Complainant.   It evidence that the 1^st Opposite Party did not rectify the defects in the said mobile phone, when the Complainant handed over the mobile to the Opposite Party.      Moreover, the mobile phone is with the 1^st Opposite Party.   It shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.    As such, the Complainant’s wish of having a mobile phone is defeated by the acts of the Opposite Party.  The Complainant had purchased mobile phone on 4.7.2011 and the mobile phone did not work properly from the very beginning.   The Opposite Party also noted as the handset is dead.  It shows that the mobile phone is having manufacturing defects.   If there is any possibility to rectify the defects of the mobile phone, the Opposite Party shall rectify the problem and had over it to the Complainant after repairs done.   But in the present case the Opposite Party did not hand over the mobile phone to the Complainant after rectifying the defects.   It shows that there is manufacturing defect and it was not rectified by the Opposite Parties.  It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties as the defective mobile phone was sold by the Opposite Parties.   The 2^nd Opposite Party who is the manufacturer has liability as he sent the defective products to the 1^st Opposite Party and who sold the mobile phone to the Complainant, so, both the Opposite Parties are held liable.   Hence, the Complainant is entitled to the cost of the mobile phone with interest, some compensation and costs too.

 

10.     In the result, this Complaint is allowed directing the Opposite Parties 1 and 2: a) to pay cost of Mobile phone of Rs.7,306/- (Rupees Seven thousand, three hundred and six only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from 29.08.2011 till the date of actual realization, and to pay b) a compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only and c) Costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the Complainant.   Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only).    Time for compliance, one month from the date of this order.

 

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this 21^st day of November, 2014.

 

Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                          Sd/-

 

President                            Male Member                        Lady Member

                                     

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	04.07.2011	Cash Bill S1/GAJ/5079	Original
Ex.A02	04.07.2011	Warranty Card	Original
Ex.A03	20.07.2011	Job Work Sheet No5 issued by the 1st OP to the Complainant	Original
Ex.A04	29.08.2011	Registered Lawyer’s Notice issued by the Complainant’s counsel to Ops.	Office copy
Ex.A05	29.08.2011	Returned cover with acknowledgement card of 1st OP	Original
Ex.A06	05.09.2011	Retuned acknowledgement card of 2nd OP	Original

For the Opposite Parties:-      

                                                -Nil-

                                     

Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                          Sd/-

 

President                       Male Member                                               Lady Member