This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. R. Prasad, Advocate for the complainant; Notices for opposite parties No.1 & 2 served and called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration this forum passed the following:
ORDER
(Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, FAC President)
This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is a businessman and his business name and style M/s Butterfly Fashions Ready Made Cloth Shop, Khammam for the purpose of personal need decided to purchase a Cell phone, in that way he attracted to the opposite party No.1 company adds, offers and models features etc., and approached the opposite party No.2 shop and purchased the Celkon A97 Cell Phone, for Rs.7,999/-, dt.28-12-2012 vide Bill No.1345 for one year warranty from the date of purchase. The complainant submitted that after purchase of cell phone within one month it was not working properly due to some defect, so that he approached the opposite party No.2 and explained its problem, then the opposite party No.2 authority took the phone and get repaired saying that there is battery problem. Again and again the cell phone was getting different problems, every time the opposite party No.2 shop authorities gives baseless and unreasonable reply to the complainant. The complainant also submitted that many times he approached and requested the opposite party No.2 shop authorities but they said that the cell phone is manufacture defective and the opposite party No.2 is selling the items only on commission basis and have no responsibility to take back the cell phone to give another one and also said to approach Celkon Company. The complainant further submitted that vexed with attitude and irresponsible behaviour of opposite party No.2 and also with the repairs of cell phone he suffered a lot and issued legal notice to the opposite party No.1 through his advocate and the opposite party No.1 failed to give reply, as such there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, the complainant approached the Forum and filed complaint praying to direct the opposite parties to replace the Celkon Cell phone with a new one and also damages for Rs.25,000/- along with costs.
2. On behalf of the complainant written arguments were filed and also filed the following documents, which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A8.
Ex.A1:- Photocopy of Invoice No.1345, dt.28-12-2012 for Rs.7,999/-, along with warranty issued by opposite party No.2.
Ex.A2:- Photocopy of Customer Acknowledgement, dt.13-09-2013, vide Job sheet No.009013004.
Ex.A3:- Office copy of Legal notice, dt.25-11-2013 issued by complainant to opposite party No.1.
Ex.A4:- Complaint Settled Reply, dt.19-12-2013 from the Superintendent of Post Offices, Khammam.
Ex.A5:- Complaint Acknowledgement, dt.19-12-2013 from the Superintendent of Post Offices, Khammam.
Ex.A6:- Postal Receipt, dt.25-11-2013.
3. Inspite of receipt of notice by opposite parties No.1 & 2, they were called absent. No representation made by any of the opposite parties. Heard the oral arguments of counsel for complainant.
4. Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the point that arose for consideration are,
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?
- To what relief?
Point No.1:-
In this case the complainant purchased Celkon A97 Cell Phone, for Rs.7,999/- dt.28-12-2012 vide Bill No.1345 for one year warranty from the opposite party No.2. According to the complainant, the cell phone was not working properly within one month of its purchase having some defect, so that he approached the opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.2 shop authority get repaired saying that there is some battery problem, again and again the cell phone was getting different problems, he approached the opposite party No.2 many times and they said to approach Celkon Company as the cell phone is having manufacture defect. Vexed with attitude and irresponsible behaviour of opposite party No.2, the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 failed to give any reply, the complainant approached the Forum for redressal.
From the above we observed that the cell phone sold by the opposite party No.2 having manufacturing defect. But the opposite parties failed to rectify the defect in the cell phone purchased by the complainant and it is further observed that even after receipt of notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 did not appear before the Forum and also failed to produce any evidence to disprove the contention of the complainant. In view of the above facts we find that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2:-
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties No.1 & 2, to replace the Celkon A97 Cell Phone with new one or to refund the cost of the mobile i.e. Rs.7,999/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine only) to the complainant and further directed to pay Rs.500/- towards damages and costs of the litigation.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this day of March, 2014
FAC PRESIDENT MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUEMR FORUM, KHAMMAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant and opposite parties: None
Exhibits marked for Complainant:-
Ex.A1:- Photocopy of Invoice No.1345, dt.28-12-2012 for Rs.7,999/-, along with warranty issued by opposite party No.2.
Ex.A2:- Photocopy of Customer Acknowledgement, dt.13-09-2013, vide Job sheet No.009013004.
Ex.A3:- Office copy of Legal notice, dt.25-11-2013 issued by complainant to opposite party No.1.
Ex.A4:- Complaint Settled Reply, dt.19-12-2013 from the Superintendent of Post Offices, Khammam.
Ex.A5:- Complaint Acknowledgement, dt.19-12-2013 from the Superintendent of Post Offices, Khammam.
Ex.A6:- Postal Receipt, dt.25-11-2013.
Exhibits marked for opposite parties:- - Nil -
FAC PRESIDENT MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUEMR FORUM, KHAMMAM
