O R D E R

G.APPALA NAIDU, MEMBER

          This complaint is filed by the complainant seeking relief to direct the OP’s to return the mobile phone illegally retained by the 2^nd OP duly rectifying the defect or in the alternative deliver a new mobile phone in case the defect is not rectified and also pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony to pay costs of the petition and to grant such other relief or reliefs as Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

        It is submitted by the complainant that he purchased ONIDA-F 099 model mobile phone from the 1^st OP for Rs.3,000/- on 21.07.2011 under bill No.N3243 and there is a defect in the touch screen with battery ever since the date of purchase.  Immediately the complainant brought the defect to the notice of 1^st OP but the 1^st OP stated that the trouble will be rectified in the course of usage but even after completion of two months, the defect was not rectified and as per the advise of 1^st OP he approached the 2^nd OP (Since there is warranty) and on the instruction of the staff he tendered the mobile phone to 2^nd OP for rectification of the defect of touch screen and lodged a complaint on 25.09.2011.  The 2^nd OP promised to rectify the said defect and deliver the mobile phone to the complainant within two weeks from the date of complaint but of no avail inspite of his visits time and again to the 2^nd OP and also that the 2^nd OP did not choose to return the said mobile phone inspite of his request to do so and on the other hand started giving evasive replies. Even though the complainant brought the attitude of 2^nd OP to the notice of 1^st OP he also gave evasive replies and further directed the complainant to report the matter to whomsoever he likes.

        It is further submitted by the complainant that he is running a tent house and used to supply the samiyanas and other cooking vessels during functions and apart from that he is also doing real estate business and thus he is in need of a cell phone day-in and day-out.  Expecting his mobile phone back after repair within short time, the complainant did not purchase a new mobile phone and thereby he lost communication with his customers and clients.  As the OP’s retained the said mobile phone unauthorisedly, the complainant sustained huge loss all these days  and the estimate of his loss is put at Rs.25,000/- for which the OP’s are liable to compensate besides returning the mobile phone retained by 2^nd OP with proper rectification of the defect.

        It is also submitted that the complainant got issued a registered legal notice dated 07.01.2012 calling upon the OP’s to return the mobile phone but having received the said notices both the OP’s did not choose to return the mobile phone after rectifying the defect nor replied and therefore the attitude of the OP’s amounts to deficiency of service and dereliction of duties resulting in untold pain and mental agony suffered by the complainant.  Hence this complaint.

        Exhibit A1 to A6 are marked on behalf of the complainant and no exhibits are  marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties.  Exhibit A1 is the Invoice/Bill.  Exhibit A2 is the Job Sheet, Exhibit A3 is the warranty card, Exhibit A4 is copy of legal notice, Exhibit A5 is postal acknowledgement from OP 1 and Exhibit A6 is postal acknowledgement from OP 2.

The complainant submitted Affidavit in this Forum along with bill no.N3243 dated 21.07.2011 of cell point, Vizianagaram (1^st OP) job sheet issued by customer relation centre dated 25.09.2011 (2^nd OP), warranty card dated 21.07.2011, office copy of lawyer’s notice dated 07.01.2012, acknowledgement from 1^st OP and acknowledgement from 2^nd OP dated 12.01.2012.

        From the material placed on record, It is evident that the OP’s having received the legal notice from the side of the complainant and also after the complaint is filed in the Forum, they did not respond in any way nor evinced any interest in pursuing the matter which shows that there is deficiency and dereliction of duty on the part of OP’s.  Since the contents of the complaint remains uncontroverted besides the fact that there was no representation from the OP’s inspite of number of adjournaments granted, the complaint is liable to be allowed in part.  

In the result, the petition is partly allowed directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally to return the mobile phone after rectification of defect alleged or refund the mobile cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.  OP’s are also further directed to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant which includes advocate fee of Rs.500/- This order shall be complied within one month from today.   

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 10^th day of January, 2013.

Member                                                                 President

C.C.No.72/2012

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For complainant:-                                   For opposite parties:-

        PW 1.                                                       RW 1.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For complainant:-

Ex.A-1  Sales Invoice/Bill.

Ex.A-2  Job Sheet Copy.

Ex.A-3  Onida Mobile Brochure.

Ex.A-4  Lawyer’s Notie.

Ex.A-5  Acknowledgement.

Ex.A-6  Acknowledgement.

                                                                                President