Date of filing:14.2.2014
Date of Disposal:3.7.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II:: VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF JULY, 2014.
C.C.No.55 OF 2014
Between :
Sri B.Ramesh, S/o China Adeiah, Hindu, Proprietor of Sri Balaji Timber Traders, D.No.30-17-31, Varanasivari Street, Seetharampuram, Vijayawada.
….. Complainant.
And
1. Chocolate Mobile Boutique, Rep., by its Proprietor, D.No.39-1-56, M.G.Road, Vijayawada -10
2. Sri Karthik Enterprises (Cell Phone Service), Rep., by its Proprietor, D.No.39-9-46, SVS Temple Street, Labbipet, Vijayawada – 10.
3. The Managing Director, United Telecoms Ltd., Imported by HTC Mobile, D.No.18A/19, Doddanekund Industrial Area, Mahadevapuram Post, Bangalore – 560 048.
…..Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 18.6.2014 in the presence of Sri B.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for complainant and opposite parties 1 and 3 remained absent and Sri B.Samba Siva Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The averments of the complaint are in brief:
1. The complainant purchased a cell phone from the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.42,000/- from the 1st opposite party on 7.8.2013. From the date of its purchase the cell phone is not working properly i.e., no signals and auto power off and on. Immediately the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and informed about the defects of the cell phone and the 1st opposite party advised him to approach the 2nd opposite party. The complainant approached the 2nd opposite party on 23.9.2013 and the cell phone is handed over to them. The 2nd opposite party returned the handset to the complainant stating that they rectified the defect in the handset. Again and again the same problem arose in the handset but the 2nd opposite party represented every time that they rectified all the defects and the same repairs would never arise. But till today the defects were not rectified. Under the said circumstances the complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the defective handset with new one, but the opposite parties postponing the same. The complainant spend huge amount for purchase of the said mobile and due to the defects in the handset the complainant suffered untold mental agony and suffering. Therefore the complainant got issued a legal notice demanding the opposite parties to replace the defective handset with new one which is in working condition. The opposite parties 2 and 3 received the notices but kept quiet which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite parties praying the Forum to direct the opposite parties to replace the mobile phone with another model worth Rs.42,000/- without any manufacturing defect or to pay Rs.42,000/- along with interest at 24% per annum from the date of purchase till realization to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and to pay costs.
2. Notices were served to all the opposite parties. Opposite parties 1 and 3 remained absent. Opposite party No.2 filed vakalath but did not contest the matter.
3. The complainant gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.17.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1
to 3 towards the complainant in not rectifying the defects of his cell phone?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
6. The complainant purchased a cell phone under Ex.A.1 from the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs.42,000/- on 7.8.2013. The complainant says that from the date of purchase itself the cell phone is not working properly i.e., no signals and auto power off and on. Immediately the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and informed about the defects in the mobile handset and on the advice of the 1st opposite party he approached the 2nd opposite party on 23.9.2013 and handed over cell phone to the 2nd opposite party under Ex.A.2 dated 23.9.2014. The 2nd opposite party returned the handset to the complainant stating that they rectified defect in the handset. But again and again the same problem arose in the handset. Again the complainant handed over the handset to the 2nd opposite party on 10.11.2013 under job sheet Ex.A.3 and the 2nd opposite party handed over the cell phone to the complainant stating that they rectified the defect. But again the complainant handed over the cell phone to the 2nd opposite party for repairs on 22.11.2013 under job card Ex.A.4, again on 7.12.2013 under Ex.A.5 and again on 18.12.2013 under Ex.A.6. But the defects were not rectified, again and again the same problem arose in the handset. But the 2nd opposite party represented every time that they rectified all the defects and the same repair would never arise. But till today the defects are not rectified. Therefore the complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties under Ex.A.7 dated 28.12.2013 demanding the opposite parties to replace the cell phone with another model of same brand worth Rs.42,000/- with new one in working condition without any defects or to pay the cell phone cost of Rs.42,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of purchase till realization and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony. Notice of the 1st opposite party returned unserved under Ex.A.8 and the notices of opposite parties 2 and 3 are served under Ex.A.9 and Ex.A.10 respectively. But they did not give reply and kept quiet. Therefore in view of the said facts we came to conclusion that there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 3 and they are liable to replace the defective handset or to refund the cost of the cell phone. But the 2nd opposite party being the service provider has no liability to pay any damages to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get relief from opposite parties 1 and 3 only. Accordingly these points are answered.
POINT No.3:-
7. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties 1 and 3 are directed jointly and severally to replace the cell phone with another model of cell phone of same cost of Rs.42,000/- without any manufacturing defects or to pay an amount of Rs.42,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of purchase i.e., 7.8.2013 till realization and the opposite parties 1 and 3 are further directed jointly and severally to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and damages and to pay Rs.1,000/- as costs to the complainant within one month. Rest of the claims of the complainant are rejected.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 3rd day of July, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 B.Ramesh None.
Complainant
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 07.08.2013 Photocopy of tax invoice issued by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A.2 23.09.2013 photocopy of Service report.
Ex.A.3 11.10.2013 photocopy of Service report.
Ex.A.4 22.11.2013 photocopy of Service report.
Ex.A.5 07.12.2013 photocopy of Service report.
Ex.A.6 18.12.2013 photocopy of Service report.
Ex.A.7 28.12.2013 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.8 . . unserved returned cover.
Ex.A.9 . . Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A.10 . . Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A.11 . . Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A.12 . . Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A.13 28.12.2013 Postal receipt.
Ex.A.14 28.12.2013 Postal receipt.
Ex.A.15 28.12.2013 Postal receipt.
Ex.A.16 28.12.2013 Postal receipt.
Ex.A.17 28.12.2013 Postal receipt.
For the opposite parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT
