Date of filing: 06.08.2014.
Date of disposal: 16.12.2014.
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
Tuesday, the 16th day of December, 2014
C.C.No.177 of 2014
Between:
Smt T. Venkata Lakshmi, W/o Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about 39 years, R/o. Vambey Colony, Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada – 15.
…..Complainant.
And
1. Celcom Impex (P) Ltd., Rep: by its Authorized Signatory, III Floor, Block – II, My Home Hub, Hi-Tech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500081.
2. Swathi’s Mobile Zone, Rep: by its Authorized Signatory, Sri Ch. Srinivas, D.No.28-10-26/3, Opp: Maszeed, Maszeed Street, Arundelpet, Vijayawada – 2.
3. Hari Communications, Celkon Car Mobile Service Centre, Rep: by its Authorized Signatory, D.No.28-19-4, Janda Street, Arundelpet, Eluru Road, Vijayawada – 2.
. . … Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 10.12.2014, in the presence of Sri K. Kishore Kumar, advocate for complainant; opposite parties 1 to 3 remained absent 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 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 directing the opposite parties to refund the Celkon GSM Mobile hand set amount of Rs.2,500/- along with interest at 12% p.a. Or replace the same with a new mobile, directing them to pay Rs.10000/- towards mental agony and costs of Rs.1000/-.
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant submitted that she purchased a Cellkon mobile hand set having model No.c8040 from 1st opposite party on 09-05-2014 for Rs.2,500/- under invoice No.889 and it has got one year warranty. It is further submitted that the said hand set was used to switch off and become defective and it was handed over to 3rd opposite party who is authorized service center on 23.6.2014 for repair. The 3rd opposite party assured to return the said phone within three days, but finally stated that the warranty period does not cover the defect caused to hand set and asked to pay Rs.1600/- for rectification. Though the complainant stated that the hand set was within warranty period, the 3rd opposite party refused to repair the same. The complainant also approached the 2nd opp. Party dealer who stated that they are no way concerned with the defects in the hand set and they are only dealers. The complainant got issued a legal notice dt.3.7.2014 demanding the opposite parties to replace the defective hand set with a defect free one or return the amount of Rs.2,500/-. The opposite parties 1 to 3 having received the notice kept quiet. 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 did not made their appearance and called absent.
3. The complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. 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:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 in selling defective handset to complainant?
- If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
6. Point No.1 : On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavit and documents), it is clear that the complainant has purchased Cellkon mobile model No.C8040 from the 2nd opposite party who is a dealer which was admittedly manufactured by 1st opposite party for Rs.2,500/- on 09.05.2014. Ex.A1 Tax invoice issued by 2nd opposite party establishes the same. The main grievance of the complainant is that the said hand set developed problems i.e. hand set used to switch off and she approached the 3rd opposite party who is authorized service center for repairs and that the 3rd opposite party asked her to pay Rs.1600/- for repairs as the warranty period does not cover the handset. The complainant having vexed with the attitude of opposite parties issued notice under Ex.A2 which were dispatched under Ex.A3. Ex.A4 and A5 are the postal acknowledgments evidencing receipt of notices by opposite parties 2 and 3. Perusal of record discloses that the complainant has not filed any job sheet evidencing that she approached the 3rd opposite party for repairs. Further the complainant has not filed any warranty card to show whether the warranty is in force or not. However, in this case, the opposite parties 1 to 3 did not made their appearance even after notices in the complaint. The opposite parties 2 and 3 also failed to give reply to the notice of complainant under Ex.A2 though they received the same under Ex.A4 and A5. Therefore, the claim of the complainant is deemed to be admitted by the opposite parties 1 to 3. Exs. A1 to A5 were remained unquestioned and unchallenged. As such this Forum has no option except the believe the version of complainant.
7. According to complainant, the 3rd opposite party authorized service center people demanded Rs.1600/- for repairs. The said contention is not denied by the opposite parties 1 and 3 by giving any reply. As such, there is a manufacturing defect in the hand set. As per the version of complainant, the non rectification of defect by the 3rd opposite party who is authorized service center amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 3 who are manufacturer and authorized service center. Admittedly the 2nd opposite party is a dealer who sells the handsets and generally they have no knowledge about the defects in the handset. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled for refund of amount besides costs of Rs.500/- and compensation of Rs.1000/-.
8. According to Section 2(1) (g) 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)(a) & 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.
9. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 3 jointly and severally to pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) being cost of cell phone to the complainant besides costs of Rs.500/- and compensation of Rs.500/- Time for compliance is one month. The other claims of complainant shall stands dismissed. The complainant is directed to produce mobile phone before the 3rd opposite party within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order if it is with him with proper acknowledgement. Case against 2nd opposite party is dismissed.
Typewritten by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 16th day of December, 2014.
PRESIDENT (FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: -None- For the opposite parties: -None-
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 09.05.2014 Original copy of tax invoice.
Ex.A2 03.07.2014 Copy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OPs.
Ex.A3 Postal receipts.
Ex.A4 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A5 Postal acknowledgement.
On behalf of the opposite parties: - Nil-
PRESIDENT (FAC).
