Between:

T.Bhaskara Raju, S/o Viswanadha Raju, 45 years,

Resident of D.No.17-4-5, Kodugantivari Street,

VIZIANAGARAM.                                      

                                                                                …Complainant                 

And

1. Cell Point, Rep.,by its Proprietor Anil,  17-3-12,

Opposite Gurajada Apparao House, Vizianagaram.

1. Sri Sainath Enterprises, Rep.,by its Manager,

D.No.53-23-4, Chaitanya Nagar, Beside Kinnera theatre,

Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam.

                                                                            …Opposite Parties

      This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri B.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the complainant and OPs called absent, and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

SRI G.APPALA NAIDU, MEMBER

O R D E R

          This complaint is filed Under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, seeking reliefs to direct the OPs to replace the mobile phone sold to the complainant on 12^th day of November 2012 with a new one, to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards the loss, pain, suffering, mental agony sustained by the complainant for the acts, deeds and deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps, to pay costs of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper under the circumstances and facts of the case on the following averments:-

          The complainant and the 1^st O.P are the residents of Vizianagaram and the 2^nd O.P is the resident of Visakhapatnam.  The 1^st O.P is the authorized dealer of cell phones like Karbonn and the 2^nd O.P is the authorized service centre of the said cell phones who gave vide publicity and advertisement through many modes and methods assuring, undertaking and promising that Karbonn KT 61 model cell phone is the best one with touch facility, touch accuracy, recognizing the sim, network, battery and so on in all ways and as such the complainant purchased the said cell phone from the 1^st O.P based on their inducement on 12^th day of November, 2012 believing the words, assurances and the undertaking of the O.Ps.    The said mobile worked for about 4 months properly and latter on, all of a sudden to the utter surprise of the complainant, the touch facility of the said mobile phone completely stopped working in all the ways and hence he approached the 2^nd O.P as per the instructions of 1^st O.P., and complained about the said touch problem which was got repaired by the 2^nd O.P. but the said mobile worked properly for about 4 days and latter on, again the same complaint crept for which again the complainant complained about the said problem in the month of May, 2013 to the 1^st O.P who asked the complainant to retain the said mobile and accordingly the complainant kept the same with the 1^st O.P. on the impression that the same will be repaired in the good manner.   However, the 1^st O.P kept the said mobile with him for about 20 days and on repeated demands and requests made by the complainant the 1^st O.P. replied that he sent the same to the service centre and the problem will be cured in all the ways.  Believing the words of the O.P’s the complainant kept quite for about 20 days but in vain and any how after repeated demands by the complainant the 1^st O.P. returned the said mobile to the complainant and however to the utter surprise of the complainant the said mobile is also suffering from Sim recognizing problem in addition to previous touch problem and could not receive any incoming calls and also could not proceed with the outgoing calls in any manner whatsoever.  Again, the complainant approached the O.Ps. and complained about the above problem but in vain.    As the mobile phone was not working properly due to its default in all aspects and the same cannot be cured, the O.P’s are liable to replace the same with a new one, since there is deficiency of service on their part.   As there is no proper response from the O.Ps the complainant also got issued registered lawyer’s notice on 21-6-2013 which was acknowledged by the O.Ps but in vain. Hence, this complaint.

          O.P.2 was present in the Forum on 23-12-2013 and afterwards O.P.1 and 2 were never present in the Forum nor filed counters or evidence affidavits or brief written arguments respectively and also not represented through their advocate if any.  The complainant filed evidence affidavit and brief written arguments besides advancing oral arguments through his advocate.

          Heard arguments from the complainant’s side.  Posted for orders.  The orders are as follows.

          Ex.A.1 to A.3 are marked on behalf of the complainant and no documents are marked on behalf of the O.Ps.  Ex.A.1 is the original sales invoice dt.12-11-2012.  Ex.A.2 is the copy of registered lawyer’s notice dated 21-6-2013 addressed to O.Ps. Ex.A.3 are the original acknowledgements received from the O.P’s.

          As per the orders passed by this Forum to determine the defect in the mobile, Sri Gowri, authorized mechanic for Celkon Mobiles (presently independent mechanic), Sai Plaza, M.G.Road, Vizianagaram who carried the analysis / test in relation to the said mobile gave a report stating that there is problem in incoming calls and out going calls in the Karbonn cell phone as the IMEI numbers corrupted which will be rectified by the Company only and the touch screen problem may arise due to the handling by the customer and the touch phone has to be changed.  The said authorized mechanic gave his report after verification and thorough examination. 

In view of the above observation / opinion of the authorized mechanic, the O.P’s 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to rectify the above defects in the said Karbonn cell phone to the entire          satisfaction of the complainant or alternatively to replace the same with new one.  In the process of follow up with the O.P’s due to non-functioning of the Karbonn cell phone properly the complainant must have suffered mental agony, lot of inconvenience besides hardship in communication of number of messages and is accordingly entitled for some damages / compensation.  In view of the above discussions the complaint is liable to be allowed in part as per our considered opinion.

          IN THE RESULT, THE COMPLAINT IS PARTLY ALLOWED DIRECTING THE O.P’S 1 AND 2 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY TO RECTIFY THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE AUTHORIZED MECHANIC IN THE KARBONN KT 61 MODEL MOBILE TO THE ENTIRE SATISFACTION OF THE COMPLAINANT OR ALTERNATIVELY TO REPLACE THE SAME WITH NEW ONE AND ALSO TO PAY DAMAGES / COMPENSATION OF RS.2,000/- (RUPEES TWO THOUSAND ONLY) TO THE COMPLAINANT IN ADDITION TO RS.1,000/- (RUPEES ONE THOUSAND ONLY) TOWARDS COSTS OF THE COMPLAINT WHICH INCLUDES ADVOCATE FEE OF RS.500/- (RUPEES FIVE HUNDRED ONLY).  THIS ORDER SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH BY THE O.PS WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM TODAY.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 8th day of September, 2014.

     Member                                                                        President

C.C.No.70 of 2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For complainant:-                                          For opposite parties:-

        PW 1.                                                               RW 1.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For complainant:-

1. Ex.A.1 Original copy of the Sale Invoice, dt.12-11-2012.
2. Ex.A.2 Office copy of Registered Lawyer’s Notice dt.21-6-2013 
3. Ex.A.3 Originals two Acknowledgements      

For O.Ps. :-    - NIL –

                                                                                                                                                            President.