Complaint Case No. CC/1438/2016 | ( Date of Filing : 24 Aug 2016 ) |
| | 1. Santhosh.M. | Santhosh.M., S/o Mahadev, No.82/A, East of BED College, 1st Cross, Kamakshi Hospital Road, Saraswathipuram, Mysuru. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
Versus | 1. Chanakya Finance Corporation and 8 others | 1. M/s Chanakya Finance Corporation (R), No.301, 1st Floor, II Cross, Benki Nawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru. Rep. by its Managing Director, A.L.Nanjundaraje Urs, S/o Late Lingaraje Urs, 2nd Cross, Vishwamanava Double Road, Kuvempunaar, Mysuru. | 2. Rajeevalochana | 2. Rajeevalochana, S/o V.V.Venkatachalaiah, No.265, 8th Cross, Gollageri, Dewans Road, Chamaraja Mohalla, Mysuru. | 3. M.K.Biddappa | 3. M.K.Biddappa, S/o M.K.Kariappa, No.20, Badaga Village, FNC College Post, Madikerei-571201. | 4. Leelavathi | 4. Leelavathi, W/o M.Shivanna, No.453, 1st Cross, 1st Stage, Gayathripuram, Mysuru-570019. | 5. Nagarathna | 5. Nagarathna, W/o Srinivas, No.834, 1st Cross, Kamatageri, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru. | 6. H.N.Dakshayini | 6. H.N.Dakshayani, W/o R.Ramesh, No.834, 1st Cross, Kamatageri, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru. | 7. Jayaprakash | 7. Jayaprakash, S/o Appavoo Pillai, No.3047, 1st Cross, 1st Stage, Gokulam, Mysuru-570002. | 8. Lalitha | 8. Smt.Lalitha, W/o T.V.Venkataramu, No.3, Gokulam 4th Stage, Manjunathapura, Mysuru. | 9. A.M.Monappa | 9. A.M.Monappa, S/o A.P.Mandappa, No.20/41, Near Health Office, Madikeri-571201. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023 CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.129/2017 DATED ON THIS THE 10th August 2018 Present: 1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT 2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C. B.E., LLB., PGDCLP - MEMBER COMPLAINANT/S | | : | Kantharaju, S/o Late Manchaiah, D.No.3873, 3rd Cross, 1st Main Road, Gandhinagara, Mysuru. (Sri Ravikumar.R, Adv.) | | | | | | V/S | OPPOSITE PARTY/S | | : | - Manager, Mega Mobile Show Room, No.1020, Near Mandi Police Station, K.T.Street, Mysuru-570001.
(Sri R.Muthuraju, Adv.) - Manager, Sony India Private Ltd., A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
(Sri B.P.Vignesh, Adv.) - Manager, Roshan Electronics (Service Center), LPG 123, HUDCO, Panchamantra Road, Near J.S.S. Law College, Jayanagara 1st Stage, Kuvempunagara, Mysuru.
(EXPARTE) | | | | | |
Nature of complaint | : | Deficiency in service | Date of filing of complaint | : | 27.04.2017 | Date of Issue notice | : | 04.05.2017 | Date of order | : | 10.08.2018 | Duration of Proceeding | : | 1 YEAR 3 MONTHS 13 DAYS |
Sri. Devakumar,M.C. Member - The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986 against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to replace the defective mobile with defect free new mobile or in the alternate, to refund the value of the mobile and to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- for the mental agony and hardship caused with such other reliefs.
- The complainant purchased sony xperia XA ultra mobile for a sum of Rs.26,800/-, from opposite party No.1 on 04.09.2016 for his personal usuage. The mobile suffered with hanging problem.
- On the advice of opposite party No.1, the mobile phone was submitted to opposite party No.3 for rectification. Despite of repairs for about seven times, the problems could not be resolved. On intimation of the same, the opposite party No.1 replied evasively.
- Aggrieved with the sale of defective mobile, a legal notice was caused on 25.03.2017, calling upon to replace the mobile or to refund the value of the mobile. The opposite parties neither replied the notice nor complied to the demands. Hence, the aggrieved filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
- Opposite party No.1 being the dealer of opposite party No.2, the manufacturer of mobile phone, filed common version for both. The sale of mobile phone admitted. On receipt of the phone with complaints, the same were satisfactorily resolved free of cost and returned without causing any inconvenience. The software of the mobile requires timely updation for smooth functioning. The complainant made allegations such as inherent manufacturing defects, without any documentary evidence. The legal notice was replied suitably on 25.04.2017. Hence, the deficiency in service is denied and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
- The complainant and opposite party No.2 filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and relied on several documents. Written arguments filed by the complainant and opposite party No.2. Heard the oral submissions of complainant counsel. Perused the material on record and posted for orders.
- The points arose for our consideration are:-
- Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service by the opposite parties, for not rectifying the defects found in the mobile phone and for selling a defective mobile to him and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
- What order?
- Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative. Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following :: R E A S O N S :: - Point No.1:- The mobile phone purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.26,800/-, from opposite party No.1, on 04.09.2016, suffered with various problems since the day of its purchase. The mobile was handed over to the authorised service centre on many occasions for rectification of the defects. Though the opposite party No.3, inspected and made attempts to resolve the defects in the mobile, the defects persisted. Hence, the aggrieved alleged the inherent manufacturing defects, filed the complaint and sought for the reliefs.
- The opposite party contended that, as and when the complainant handed over the mobile phone with the defects, the same were promptly attended, without any charge and resolved the problems. The complainant, on satisfying himself with the satisfactory resolving of the defects, received the mobile phone. Further, contended that, the mobile software is required to be periodical updation for smooth functioning of the applications. As such, denies the allegation of manufacturing defects in the phone and also denies the allegation of deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
- On perusal of the material on record, the complainant established that the mobile suffered with various problems, within short span of time. The job cards established that the mobile suffered with defects often and the same were resolved before returning to the complainant. The opposite parties admissions also established that, there was defects in the mobile, as such, the mobile was handed over to them often. In view of the same, the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are liable to rectify the defects fully and return the mobile or to replace the defective mobile with defect free mobile or to refund the value of the mobile handset to the complainant. Further, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for the deficiency in service, mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
- Point No.2:- In view of the observations made in point No.1, we proceed to pass the following :-
:: O R D E R :: - The complaint is allowed in part.
- The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally hereby directed to rectify the defects in the mobile phone or to replace the defective phone with defect free phone of similar make a feature or to refund the value of the mobile (i.e. Rs.26,800/-) by accepting the mobile phone, within 60 days of this order. In default to comply, the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay penalty of Rs.100/- per day until compliance.
- The complainant is hereby directed to handover the mobile phone to the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 within seven days of this order to rectify the defects.
- The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally shall pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- for the deficiency in service, mental agony, inconvenience caused and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the litigation to the complainant. In default, to pay interest at 10% p.a. on the total sum of Rs.5,000/- until payment made.
- In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 to undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
- Complaint against opposite party No.1 is dismissed.
- Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 10th August 2018) | |