Date of Complaint : 19.11.2013
Date of Order :10.02.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT : THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER – I
DR.T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.No. 373 / 2013
THIS WEDNESDAY 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
Govind Mundra,
No.24/4, First Cross Street,
Kilpauk Garden Colony,
Kilpauk,
Chennai 600 010. .. Complainant.
- Vs-
1. Comwen Information Technologies, (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, 1st Floor, 150 Montieth Road, HDFC Bank ATM, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. 2. M/s. Redington India Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, Old No.11, New No.27, NRS Building, Velachery Road, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. .. Opposite parties. | | .. Opposite party. |
| | |
For the complainant : M/s. S.Jothi Kumar & another
For the opposite parties : Exparte
ORDER
THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA, :: MEMBER-I
1. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony with interest and also cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
2. Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the opposite parties did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version. Hence the opposite parties were set exparte on 24.7.2014.
3. Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 filed by the complainant and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant counsel.
4. The complainant contented that he purchased a Black Berry Mobile for Rs.8,600/- Model No.8520 white colour on 2.4.2012 at Pritam Communication Egmore, Chennai and also purchased another Black Berry Mobile model 9300 from the same shop for Rs.8600/- totaling Rs.17,200/-. Since both mobile got repaired, he gave the mobiles to the 1st opposite party for service on 19.4.2013. But only on 25.6.2013 after a long struggle the opposite partly issued a copy of Consumer Unit Receipt for both the mobiles having IMEI No. ending with 9404 and 78337 for model 8520 and 9300 respectively with an endorsement call type warranty. But till date the opposite party had not delivered the mobiles and wasted the complainants’ precious time. As such the complainant had to undergo lot of mental stress and also disturbed his business totally. Hence he issued legal notice dated 20.9.2013 to hand over the mobiles duly repaired or to give new mobiles, since they were under warranty. Since even after receipt of notice, the opposite party did not respond, the complainant filed the above complaint directing the opposite party to pay compensation for deficiency of service with cost of the complaint.
5. Admittedly the complainant has given two mobile phones bearing Model No.8520 and 9300 to the 1st opposite party for repair which is evidenced through Ex.A1. But as per the contention of the complainant the 1st opposite party had not returned the said mobiles after duly repaired despite of receipt of legal notice sent by the complainant dated 20.9.2013 i.e. Ex.A3. As a service provider the 1st opposite party is duty bound to return the two mobiles mentioned in Ex.A2 to the complainant duly repaired but he had not done so. Hence the grievance of the complainant that 1st opposite party had committed deficiency of service is acceptable.
6. On perusal of Ex.A1 and the averments made in the complaint it shows that the complainant had used the mobile for one year and only afterwards the said mobile got repaired. Although the complainant had produced the bill for purchase of only one mobile i.e. Ex.A1 the document namely the customer unit receipt i.e. Ex.A2 proves the contention of the complainant that he had given two mobiles for repair.
7. Though there is no specific grievance against the 2nd opposite party according to clause-15 of the terms and conditions in Ex.A2 i.e. Customer Unit receipt it is understood that the authority towards money transaction on behalf of the 1st opposite party prevails over the 2nd opposite party and as such both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to comply the grievance of the complainant.
8. However, the manufacturing defect attributed against the opposite parties is not sustainable for the reason that the complainant had used the mobiles for more than one year. Moreover he had not impleaded the manufacturer as a necessary party.
9. Further we are of the opinion that if the opposite parties are directed to hand over the two mobiles duly repaired at this stage he may demand exorbitant amount as service charges as such direction to hand over the mobiles after duly repaired is not justifiable.
10. The compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant. Therefore we decide that the opposite parties are liable to return the two mobiles along with only just and reasonable compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
11. If the opposite parties fails to return the said two mobiles they are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for each mobile totaling of Rs.10,000/- since the said mobiles are used for one year and we estimate the cost of each mobile at Rs.5,000/-.
12. Moreover the opposite parties never appeared before this forum to give any contra evidence to defend their case.
13. From the above facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to return the complaint mentioned two mobiles or to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for each mobile totaling of Rs.10,000/- as approximate cost of the two mobiles along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to return the complaint mentioned two mobiles or to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as approximate cost of the complaint mentioned two mobiles along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) as litigation charges to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of realization.
Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 10TH day of Februarty 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s Side documents :
Ex.A1- 2.4.2012 - Copy of receipt.
Ex.A2- 25.6.2013 - Copy of Customer Unit Receipt.
Ex.A3- 20.9.2013 - Copy of Legal notice with AD card.
Opposite party’s side documents: -
.. Nil .. (exparte)
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
