[Delivered by Sri B. Srinivasu, Member]

          This Complaint is filed on 04-08-2014 by the Complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (registered on 12-08-2014), praying to direct the Opposite Parties to replace the phone Samsung Galaxy, S-4 Mini, Model No.GT-I 9192; to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and to pay costs of the Complaint, to the Complainant.

1.       The brief facts of the Complainant’s case are as follows:

          The Complainant purchased a smart phone in Galaxy series Model S-5 Mini, Model   No.GT-I 9192, on 11-06-2014, for a sum of Rs.18,900/- from the 3^rd Opposite Party, under Ex.A-1 Bill, bearing No.160.  After 5 days of purchase, the phone was hanging while playing games.  Then, the Complainant complained about the defects to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 17-06-2014, but, the 2^nd Opposite Party could not solve the defects.  Then, the Complainant got issued a legal notice dated 25-06-2014 to all the Opposite Parties.  The said legal notice was served on the Opposite Parties 2 and 3.         

2.       The 1^st Opposite Party filed written version, which runs briefly as follows:

          When the handset was brought to the service centre on 16-06-2014, the software was upgraded and the handset is working in good condition.  There is no defect in the handset, for which, the question of the replacement of the mother board will not arise.    

3.       The 2^nd Opposite Party called absent and failed to appear before the Forum at any point of time to defend the case though the notice given by the Forum was served. 

4.       The 3^rd Opposite Party filed written version, admitting the sale transaction of handset and further contending that the 3^rd Opposite Party is not the manufacturer of the cell phones and that no manufacturing defect is alleged in the Complaint.  The     3^rd Opposite Party further contended that there is no possibility to change the mother board of the cellular phone at free of cost, as the mother board costs more than Rs.1,000/- and that on payment of price of the mother board and service charges, the mother board will be replaced.   

5.       Chief affidavit of the Complainant is filed and the same is received as evidence of P.W.1.  One Shriniwas Joshi, Service, Gurgaon filed his chief affidavit on behalf the 1^st Opposite Party and same is received as evidence of D.W.1.  One Pinnamaneni Sri Ram, Priprietor, Jagathy Distributors, Gudivada, filed his chief affidavit on behalf of the 3^rd Opposite Party and the same is received as evidence of D.W.2. 

          Exs.A-1 and A-6 are marked on behalf of the Complainant.  No documents are marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties.  Mobile handset deposited by the Complainant is marked as M.O.1.

6.       The points that fall for determination in this C.C. are;

(1)      whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3;

(2)      whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the Complaint.

(3)      to what relief.

7.       Heard both sides and perused the documents filed on both sides. 

Point No.1:

8.       As could be seen from the material available on record, it is clear that the Complainant purchased a smart phone in Galaxy series Model S-5 Mini, Model   No.GT-I 9192, on 11-06-2014, for a sum of Rs.18,900/- from the 3^rd Opposite Party, under Ex.A-1 Bill, bearing No.160 and the same was not disputed by the Opposite Parties 1 and 3.  The Complainant stated that after 5 days of purchase, the phone was hanging while playing games like Temple Run, Candy Crush and Subway Surfers.  As per Ex.A-3 Customer’s Report, Complainant gave a complaint to 2^nd Opposite Party on  17-06-2014, making complaint regarding the working condition of M.O.1, the           2^nd Opposite Party, who is the proper person to contradict Ex.A-3, remained absent in this proceedings.  The 1^st Opposite Party has not placed any material before the Forum to contradict Ex.A-3.  When such is the position, it must be held that there is a complaint regarding the working condition of M.O.1 within six days from the date of its purchase. 

9.       The main contention of the 1^st Opposite Party is that it is not liable to the relief of claimant as the complaint mentioned in Ex.A-3 related to software problem.  But the 1^st Opposite Party has not whispered in his written version filed at the earliest opportunity about his above case.  So, in the absence of any such specific plea in the written version, it is not open for 1^st Opposite Party to canvass his case in the above manner while at the time of arguments.  Even otherwise, a careful peruse of warranty card does not show that the 1^st Opposite Party is not liable for software problem.

10.     Hence, under the above circumstances, it must be held that there is clear deficiency in service on the part of all the Opposite Parties.  Accordingly, this point is answered.

Point No.2:

11.     In view of the answering of point No.1 in the above manner, the Complainant is entitled to get M.O.1 replaced with same brand in addition to the costs.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Forum does not inclined to grant any compensation.  Accordingly, this point is answered.

Point No.3:

12.     In view of the answering of points 1 and 2 in the above manner, the Complaint has to be allowed in part. 

          In the result, the Complaint is allowed in part.  All the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are directed jointly and severally to replace the M.O.1 i.e., Galaxy series Model S-5 Mini, Model No.GT-I 9192, with a new one of same brand and also to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) towards costs of the Complaint.  After the order is complied with, M.O.1 is ordered to be returned to the official of 1^st Opposite Party on showing proper authorization.  Time given for compliance of this Order is 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

          Typed by P.V.S.S. Prakasa Sastry, Junior Stenographer, to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 9^th day of February, 2015.                                                                

                                                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                                                          President

                                                   Sd/-                                Sd/-

Member                          Member

District Consumer Forum-I,

Krishna at Machilipatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For the Complainant:                                    For the Opposite Parties:

P.W.1:          Gutta Nagabhushana Chowdhary.       D.W.1: Shriniwas Joshi,

(Complainant, by chief affidavit)                              Service,

                                                                    Gurgaon.

                                                                    (1^st Opposite Party, by chief affidavit).

                                                                    D.W.2: Pinnamaneni Sri Ram,

                                                                              Jagathy Distributors,

                                                                              Gudivada.

                                                                    (3^rd Opposite Party, by chief affidavit).         

DOCUMENTS MARKED

On behalf of the Complainant:

On behalf of the Opposite Parties:

          - Nil –                                                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                                         President

//T.C.B.O.//

SHERISTADAR

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-I

KRISHNA AT MACHILIPATNAM