Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/82/2015

Padma Nistala - Complainant(s)

Versus

Croma - Bannergatta - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

31 Jul 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:08-04.2015

                                                                                                Date of Order:31.07-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

                                3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                                Friday, the 31^st day of July, 2015.

                                 CONSUMER CASE No.82/2015

Between:-

Padma Nistala, D/o late Sri N. Raghunadha Rao,

Hindu, aged 50 years, residing at 14-40-2,

Gokhale Road, Maharanipeta, Visakhapanam-

530002.

….. Complainant

And:-

1.Croma-Bannergatta, Unit U-7, Achor No.1,

   Royal Meenakshi, Bengalure-560076,

   Represented by its Authorized Signatory.

2.Mircomax Informatics Ltd., 21/14A, Phase-II,

   Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi-110028,

   Represented by the Managing Director.

3.M/s. LK Max Mobiles, Door No. 46-15-3/4,

   First Floor, Opp: 48 Bus Stop, Dondaparthy,

   Visakhapatnam -530016, represented by its

   Authorized Signatory.

                                                                                    …  Opposite Parties        

                     

          This case coming on 29.07.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of N. Padma Nistala (Inperson) of the Complainant and  the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are called absent   and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

       (As per Smt. K. Saroja, Honourable Lady Member, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant’s brother who is residing at Bangalore has purchased a mobile phone of MICROMAX make With Model No. MICROMAX  M/PA 110 Black on27.04.2013 from the 1^st Opposite Party.  On the occasion of birthday of the Complainant her brother presented the mobile phone to the Complainant, the Complainant has been using the mobile phone.  The said phone was given troubles in the month of July, 2013.   Then the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party, who is authorized service centre of the 2^nd Opposite Party for the first time in the month of July, 2013.   The service centre technician conformed that the software has been upgraded.  Again the Complainant faced the problem in the said mobile phone and hand over it to the Opposite Party.   The Opposite Party changed the SIM Card and Touch Screen but the problems are not rectified.    Inspite of many requests made by the Complainant, the Opposite Parties did not rectify the problems in the said mobile phone.   Hence, this Complaint.

2.       a) To replace the mobile of the same make with new one or refund the cost of the mobile i.e., Rs.10,499/- (Rupees Ten thousand, four hundred and Ninety nine only) and also direct them, to pray Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered by the Complainant besides to pay Rs.5,000/- towards the costs incurred by her.

3.       The Opposite Parties did not appear before this Forum, hence they were called absent.

 

4.       At the time of enquiry, the Complainant filed affidavit along with documents which were marked as Exs.A1 to A3.    Heard the Complainant.

 

5.       Ex.A1 is the photo copy of Retail Invoice of the Micro Max phone on 27.04.2013 by paying Rs.10,499/- from the 1^st Opposite Party.   Ex.A2 is the photo copy of Job Card of the 2^nd Opposite Party dated 3.3.2014.  Ex.A3 is photo copy of Job Card issued by the 3^rd Opposite Party dated 23.04.2014.

 

6.       The fact shown from Exs.A2 and A3 reveals that the Complainant approached the 3^rd Opposite Party for rectification of its defect.

 

7.       The point that would arise for determination in the case is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.   Whether the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

 

8.         After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the Complainant’s brother purchased a Mocromax Mobile phone on 27.04.2013 by paying Rs.10,499/-.   After 3 months of its purchase the said mobile phone given troubles to the Complainant as such the Complainant approached the service centre for its rectification.   Though the 3^rd Opposite Party replaced the SIM Card Touch Screen and also Software has been upgraded the said mobile phone did not functioned properly.   As such, the Complainant approached the 3^rd Opposite Party on 3.3.2014 and 23.04.2014 according to Exs.A2 and A3 and hand over the mobile phone with them.  The Opposite Parties received the notice from the Forum but they failed to appear before this Forum and filed any arguments on behalf of the Opposite Parties, it shows their negligence attitude.   It is the bounden duty of the Opposite Parties to rectify the problem whenever occurred in the said mobile phone but failed to do so, inspite of repeated requests and personal visits made by the Complainant.   The Opposite Parties did not rectified the mobile phone as the problems arised within the warranty period.    The Opposite Parties did not rectify the problems of the said mobile phone or refund its costs to the Complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.   Hence, the Complainant is entitled to costs of the mobile phone, some compensation and costs too.

 

9.       In the result, this complaint is allowed directing the Opposite Parties 1 to 3: a) to pay cost of the Mobile phone i.e., Rs.10,499/- (Rupees Ten thousand, four hundred and ninety nine only), b) a compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) and c) Costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to the Complainant.   Time for compliance, one month from the date of this order.

 

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of July, 2015.

 

Sd/-                                               Sd/-                                        Sd/-                                                                                             

Male Member                          President                         Lady Member

 

                                      

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	27.03.2013	Retail Invoice of the Micromax phone by paying Rs.10,499/- from the 1st OP	Photo copy
Ex.A02	03.03.2014	Job Card of the 2nd OP	Photo copy
Ex.A03	23.04.2014	Job Card issued by the 3rd OP	Photo copy

For the Opposite Parties:-                                                                                                                        

                                      -Nil-

 

   Sd/-                                         Sd/-                                        Sd/-                                                                                     

Male Member                          President                                Lady Member