Big C,Balaji Watch &mobiles Pvt Ltd., Kothgudem ,represented by its authorized Dealer Sony Ericsson ,Rep by its Administrative Officer ,Ozone Complex,3rd Floor ,Panjagutta ,Hyderabad -500092 Authorizeed Service Center ,Sony Cell Zone ,Sony Ericsson Sales and Services ,Opp to Nagabhushanam Hospital,Khammam (MB .No:9885041306)
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 5th day of April, 2010 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., LL.B., President 2. Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L., Member 3. Sri.R.Kiran Kumar, B.Sc., LL.B., Member C.C.No.125 of 2009 Between: Thogara Srikanth, S/o Venkateswarlu, Age: 23years, Occu: Work Inspector, Housing, Gundala, N/o Yellandu, R/o Gundala Village & Mandal, Khammam District. Complainant and 1. Big C, Balaji Watch & Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Kothagudem, represented by its authorized Dealer. 2. Sony Ericsson, Rep. by its Administrative officer, Ozone Complex, 3rd Floor, Panjagutta, Hyderabad-500 092. 3. Authorized Service Center, Sony Cell Zone, Sony Ericson Sales and Services, Opposite to Nagabhushanam Hospital, Wyra Road, Khammam. opposite parties This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for complainant, opposite party No.1 appeared in person; opposite party No.2 notice served and called absent; Sri Ch. Shankar, Advocate for opposite party No 3; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments this forum passed the following: ORDER (Per Sri.R.Kiran Kumar, Member) 1. This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is working as work Inspector in Housing department, at Gundala, Khammam District, he purchased W595 Sony Ericsson Mobile, from opposite party No.1 and the cost of mobile is Rs.14,134-62, vide cash receipt No.0352541SI/KTG/79 dated 23-03-2009, opposite party No.1 had given warranty which denotes one year warranty on mobile, 6 months guaranty on battery by charger as per Company Rules. The mobile purchased from the opposite party No.1 had started giving troubles 1) Head phones are not connecting 2) Sound problem, 3) No clarity in display and 4) the slides are not functioning properly, immediately the complainant approached the opposite party No.1, who disclosed that he is only retailer, the mobile has to be given in service center that is opposite party No.3, accordingly the complainant approached opposite party No.3 at Khammam, and explained problems of the instrument. The opposite party no.3 checked the mobile on 14-09-2009 and found the above defects and advised that there is a manufacturing defect arose in the mobile and it is to be sent to the company, the problems can not be rectified by him and also informed that it will take one week time either to rectify the problems or to provide new mobile and also issued an acknowledgement card vide No.792. Basing on that the complainant believed the opposite party No.3 and handedover his mobile. Thereafter, the complainant approached opposite party No.1 & 3 many times and requested for the mobile, there upon opposite party No.1 & 3 started giving evasive reply, refused to hear the complainant and also did not return the mobile to the complainant, all the efforts made by the complainant have become in vain and he lost all possible hopes as such the complainant approached the forum for redressal. 2. On receipt of the notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared in person and filed his counter. Opposite party no.2 called absent. As per the counter of opposite party No.1 admitted the transaction, i.e. purchasing mobile from his shop, he also submitted that various models of mobiles are being exhibited and sold in their show room and they are not at all manufacturers of the said mobiles, when the customer purchases a mobile the warranty/guaranty if any used to be given by the respective companies only, in case of any complaint regarding the sold mobile is received by them, they used to extend their services by endorsing the said complaint to the respective authorized service centers, they have no power or authority to replace the mobile set with a new one, as such they are not liable to pay any damages in this regard. 3. The opposite party No.3, appeared through his counsel and filed counter, admitting the purchase of mobile from opposite party No.1, warranty of one year on the mobile and six months guaranty of battery vide warranty No.IMEI No.B:444064 C:201579, I9774197, opposite party No.3 denied the allegations made in para No.2 of the complaint are that the mobile had started giving troubles and also the complainant approached opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 disclosed that he is only retailer, the mobile has to be given in service center at opposite party No.3 and that the complainant approached opposite party No.3 at Khammam and explained problem of the mobile and the opposite party No.3 checked the mobile on 14-09-2009 and found the above defects and also advised that there is a manufacturing problem arose in the said mobile and it has to be send to the company, also informed that it will take one week time to rectify the problem or to provide new mobile and issued an acknowledgment card vide No.792, are all false and invented for the purpose of filing of the complaint. And also contended that the alleged defects arose due to the improper maintenance of the mobile by the complainant, but not the manufacturing defect of the mobile. There is no warranty period of one year which is given by the opposite party No.1, the bill issued by the opposite party No.1 shows that once the goods sold can not be taken back or exchanged for any defect of the mobile and also in cause of any defect, the jurisdiction is in the course of Hyderabad only, as such this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as per the terms and conditions in the bill dated 27-03-2009. As such the complainant is not entitled for the prayer which is mentioned in the complaint. And further submitted that at the request of the complainant the opposite party No.3 agreed to replace mother board in the said mobile and panel of the cell phone subject to the withdrawal of the complaint, he further submitted that the opposite party No.3 is not the dealer or manufacturer, but he is only maintaining service center. As such in the above circumstances, pray to dismiss the complaint. 4. On behalf of the complainant, the following documents were filed and marked as exhibits A1 to A3: Ex. A1 :- Cash bill for an amount of Rs. 14,700/-, dated 23-03-2009 issued by opposite party No.1. Ex. A2: - Warranty card issued by opposite party No.1 Ex. A3:- Acknowledgement card No.792, dated 14-09-2009 issued by opposite party No.3. 5. On behalf of the opposite parties no documents has been filed. 6. Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the points arose for consideration are 1) Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim? 2) To what relief? POINT NO.1: In this case the complainant purchased W595 Sony Ericsson Mobile from opposite party No.1 for an amount of Rs.14,700/-, vide cash receipt No.0352 541/S1/KTG/7799 dated 23-03-2009 and at the time of purchase opposite No.1 had given One year warranty on mobile, six months guaranty on battery and charger as per company rules and the same was stamped on second page of warranty certificate. The mobile had giving troubles viz., 1) Head phones are not connecting 2) sound problem 3) no clarity in display, 4) automatically struck off and the slides are not functioning properly, immediately the complainant approached the opposite party No.1, on advise of opposite party No.1, he approached the opposite party No.3, and on 14-09-2009 the opposite party No.3 checked the mobile and received from the complainant by issuing receipt No. 792, dated 14-09-2009, to send the same to the company. After that the opposite party No.3 failed to handover the mobile by rectifying the problems or replace with new one. That as per the opposite party No.3, the defects of the mobile were arose due to improper maintenance by the complainant, but not the manufacturing defect if really the version of the opposite party No.3 is correct, the opposite party No.3 or the company may rectify the defects of the mobile and return the same to the complainant. But the opposite party No.3, failed to explain what prevented them to take such more long time to rectify the defect i.e. from 14-09-2009 to 16-12-2009 till filing of the complainant, before the Forum. And opposite party No.3 in para No.10 of their counter they agreed to replace the motherboard in the said mobile and also the panel of the phone, subject to withdrawal of the complaint. From the above we observe that the mobile sold by the opposite parties having manufacturing defect particularly with regard to the motherboard, for that only the opposite parties agreed to replace with new one. And also from 14-09-2009 till the filing of the complaint, even now the opposite parties kept the mobile with them, is nothing but absolutely deficiency of service on their part. Since the cause of action has arise at Kothagudem, where the complainant purchased the mobile from opposite party No.1, opposite party No.3 who received the mobile and gave acknowledgement card at Khammam, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Opposite party No.1 sold the mobile which is having manufacturing defect admitted by the opposite party No.3 and also opposite party No.3 agreed to replace mother board and panel subject to withdrawal of the complaint speaks the defects of the mobile, the same was observed by the Honble National Commission in Suchdeva Industries Vs Deep Aggarwal and others 1 (2010) CPJ 120(NC) as such the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant. POINT No.2: For the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.2 & 3, we direct the opposite party No. 2 & 3 to replace and handover a new mobile or to refund the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.14,700/- to the complainant and further directed to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards cost of the litigation. Opposite party No.1 being the retailer is also equally liable to pay the said amount to the complainant as the cause of action has taken place within his show room at Kothagudem. 7. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties No.1 to 3 to replace and handover a new mobile or to refund the cost of the mobile i.e. Rs.14,700/- and further directed to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation Rs.1000/- towards costs to the complainant. Dictated to steno, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this the 5th day of May, 2010. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMEBR DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for complainant: -None- Witnesses examined for opposite parties: -None- Exhibits marked for complainant: Ex. A1 :- Cash bill for an amount of Rs. 14,700/-, dated 23-03-2009 issued by opposite party No.1. Ex. A2: - Warranty card issued by opposite party No.1 Ex. A3:- Acknowledgement card No.792, dated 14-09-2009 issued by opposite party No.3. Exhibits marked for opposite parties: -Nil- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMEBR DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
