Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-
The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking rectification of the defect in his mobile or replacement of mobile in the alternative; Rs.10,000/- as compensation; Rs.2,000/- towards cost of another mobile; Rs.1,000/- towards transport expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
2. In brief the averments of the complaint are:
The 1st opposite party is a manufacturer of mobiles for which the 2nd opposite party is a dealer. The complainant on 22-11-11 purchased C-77 Celkon mobile with IMEI No.911137750140723 from the 2nd opposite party for Rs.3,000/-. The said mobile carried warranty for one year. As SIM-1 was not functioning the complainant handedover the said mobile to the 2nd opposite party on 14-01-12. The 2nd opposite party rectified the defect and returned the said mobile to the complainant after two weeks. The complainant again handed over the said mobile to the 2nd opposite party on 23-02-12 for rectification as the earlier problem persisted. The 2nd opposite party instead of rectifying the defect returned the said mobile along with service job sheet dated 05-03-12 with an endorsement ‘estimation on PCB, returned without repair’. The 2nd opposite party gave evasive replies when the complainant asked him regarding non rectification of defects. The opposite parties are under an obligation to rectify the defects in it as the said mobile is within the warranty period. Non functioning of one of the SIMS in dual mobile is nothing but a manufacturing defect. As the opposite parties failed to rectify the defect, the complainant sustained inconvenience and estimated it at Rs.10,000/-. The complainant was forced to purchase another mobile for Rs.2,000/- as the 2nd opposite party kept the mobile with him for about two weeks. The complainant got issued notice to the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party though received notice kept quite. The 2nd opposite party in its reply mentioned that it will rectify the defect if the same is in warranty period. The complainant on 12-04-12 handed over the mobile to the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party on its reply endorsed that the mobile is not in warranty condition, due to PCB damage. The opposite parties thus committed deficiency of service.
3. The opposite parties remained exparte.
4. Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on behalf of the complainant.
5. Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:
- Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
- To what relief?
6. POINT No.1:- Ex.A-6 reply notice dated 02-04-12 revealed that the complainant purchased CELKON mobile C-77 on 22-11-11 from the 2nd opposite party (Ex.A-1). The said mobile carried Ex.A-2 warranty. As seen from Ex.A-2 the warranty for mobile phone is one year, for battery- six months, for MMC cards, charger and accessories-three months. The complainant on 14-01-12 gave the mobile purchased under Ex.A-1 to the 2nd opposite party with the complaint ‘SIM-1 not working, MIC also problem’ as seen from Ex.A-3. The complainant again approached the 2nd opposite party who in turn returned the service job sheet on 05-03-12 with the endorsement “estimation of PCB returned without repair” as seen from Ex.A-4.
7. Ex.A-7 is the endorsement made by the 2nd opposite party on Ex.A-6 reply. Ex.A-7 reads as follows:
“If this mobile is in warranty condition we will serve freely. But his mobile is not in warranty condition, so that we cannot service it. Because it have PCB damage. So that it is not in warranty condition.”
8. The warranty period for mobile is one year as seen from Ex.A-2 warranty. It is for the opposite parties to explain the meaning of PCB. The complainant approached this Forum on 16-07-12. The contents of the complaint and affidavit remained unrebutted as the opposite parties remained exparte. Under those circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the said mobile is within warranty period and as such the opposite parties are under an obligation to repair it freely and make it functional or otherwise replace the same with new one. As the opposite parties returned the mobile purchased under Ex.A-1 with Ex.A-7 endorsement without repair it amounted to deficiency of service. We therefore answer this point against the opposite party.
9. POINT No.2:- The complainant did not file any document to show that he incurred Rs.2,000/- for purchasing another mobile and Rs.1,000/- towards transport and other expenses. In the absence of any documentary evidence the complainant is not entitled to the above amounts.
10. The complainant claimed Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the inconvenience he suffered due to the defect in the mobile purchased under Ex.A-1. The occupation of the complainant is agriculture as seen from cause title. The complainant did not explain so as to how he was inconvenienced. Compensation awarded should be in proportion to the injury complained off. Considering the value of mobile and the duration of inconvenience awarding Rs.1,000/- will meet ends of of justice. We therefore answer this point accordingly.
11. POINT No.3:- In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below:
- The complainant is directed to hand over the mobile to the 2nd opposite party within a week from the date of receipt of the order under acknowledgment.
- The opposite parties are directed to rectify the defect of the mobile purchased from the 2nd opposite party within two weeks thereafter; to replace the mobile if repair is not possible;
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant together with interest @9% p.a., from the date of complaint till realization if repair/replacement is not possible.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs to the complainant.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
- The above order shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 30th day of November, 2012.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant :
Ex.No | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
A1 | 22-11-11 | Copy of credit bill issued by 2n opposite party to the complainant |
A2 | - | Warranty card issued by 2nd opposite party to the complainant |
A3 | 14-01-12 | Copy of job work sheet issued by 2nd opposite party |
A4 | 05-03-12 | Coy of service job sheet issued by 2nd opposite party |
A5 | 26-03-12 | Office copy of legal notice got issued by complainant to opposite parties |
A6 | 02-04-12 | Reply notice got issued by the 2nd opposite party |
A7 | - | Copy of endorsement made by 2nd opposite party on the copy of the reply notice |
For Opposite Parties: NIL
PRESIDENT
