BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSURU.

Consumer Complaint (C.C.)No. 1245/2016

Complaint filed on 27.05.2016

Date of Judgement.17.08.2017

PRESENT                      :         1. Shri Ramachandra  M.S.,  B.A., LL.B.,

                                                    PRESIDENT

2. Shri  Thammanna,Y.S., B.Sc., LL.B., 

                                    MEMBER

Complainant/s       :               1.Kum. L. Yashaswini,

                                                D/o Lakshminarayana,

                                                Aged about 21 years,

                                                # 555, 3/1 Kamatageri,

                                                Nazarbad,

                                                Mysuru-570010.

 (Sri Jeevan. C.C., Advocate)

V/s

Opponent        /s             :       1. Mobile Connect,

                                                 # 1433 Danvathri road,

                                                 N.S. road, Mysuru-570001.

                                                2. M/s Punith Communication,

                                                Gionee care,

                                                # 101, I Block,

                                                Anikethana road,

                                                Kuvempu nagar,

                                                Mysuru-570023.

(OP. 1 and 2 Exparte)

  SHRI RAMACHANDRA . M.S.,

     PRESIDENT

JUDGEMENT

The complainant filed the complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party and seeking for relief of  refund amount and other relief.

2. The brief facts of the complainant had a hobby of capturing pictures of nature where ever she goes for outing. At the same time the complainant saw an advertisement in the T.V. channels and go impressed of having such a handset to serve the purpose and to avoid carrying  camera where  ever she goes. Hence the complainant thought of purchasing mobile with camera were in the complainant opted to purchase a new cell phone by looking into the advertisement in the television channels telecasted by the first opposite party that is gionee mobile phone is meant for shooting and were highlighting in the advertisement as Made for Shooting so the complainant opted to buy a cell phone believing that the gionee mobile handset will be very use full as to the features contained in the gionee mobile handset.

3. The complainant visited he mobile shop that is opposite party no.2 on 10.08.2014 and got purchased a black colour smart cell phone by name gionee E-7 elife (324 B) by paying a sum of Rs. 27,000/- including vat 5.5% after purchasing the smart phone received the receipt from the dealer of gionee smart phone that is opposite party no.2 with the, receipt a warranty card for a period of one year on mobile hand set and six months warranty for its accessories was also issued. The IMEI no of the smart phone is 862583026222580.

4. Accordingly when the complainant started to use gionee E-7 Elief(324 B) smart phone it came to the notice of the complainant that the features as given in the handset for capturing photos/videos at 6 X Zoom the photos/videos were not at all legible to the eyes because the pictures captured appeared to be blur and unidentifiable.

5. Accordingly when the complainant was listening to the songs which was stored in memory card of the gionee E-7 Elife(324 B) it came to the notice of the complainant that the song was heard from only one speaker among two speakers placed at the bottom portion of the cell phone.

6. Accordingly the gionee company used to send a company massage to the complainants cell pone stating that uniformed ventilation holes, CNC Technology, DTS sounds 3 Mic noise reduction system digital silicon Mic fluence noise cancellation technology for which the complainant sent a complaint through user fedaback from a mobile number 9845435696 and also sent a complaint about 6 X Zoom through feedback.

7. As to the complaint the gionee company replied by sending a message that pertaining to sound capacity of the mobile phone only one speaker has been placed in side and another place has been left vacant for the purpose of free air to get inside for the purpose of functioning of mobile feature RAM by such a reply the complainant  understood that capacity of the speaker cannot be improved.

8. That after receiving a reply from the gionee company for only one problem the complainant made a  call to the toll free number 18002081166 for complaining about camera zooming wherein the company replied very vehemently stating that the capacity of capturing the photo and its visibility was only limited as which is given in the features of the hand set, which is very much contrary to the advertisement of the gionee company.

9. Thereafter the complainant got fed up of using the gionee handset mobile and finally on 17.07.2015 the complainant sent a complainant to the opposite party no.1 through user feedback. To the said complaint the opposite party sent its reply on 21.07.2015 to the user feedback of the complainant thereby advising the complainant to call to the toll free number 18002081166. Accordingly complainant sent a complaint on the same day that is 21.07.2015 the complainant made a call to the above said toll free number but the connection was not at all available. Hence on 30.07.2015 ones again sent a message through the user feedback through the email but it all went in vain.

10. Accordingly the complainant for one more time sent a message through e-mail to the gionee company user feedback on 31.07.2015 and on 01.08.2015. Then the opposite party no.1 called to the complainants mobile number and advised her to give the handset to the gionee service center and to make a call to the company after receiving back the handset mobile from the service center . As per the advice of the opposite party no.1 the complainant gave the Gionee E-7 E life (324 B) black colour smart cell phone to the nearest service center on 05.08.2015 that is opposite party no.3 M/s punith communication gionee care # 101 , 1^st block Anikethana road Kuvempu nagar Mysuru  and hte complainant explained about the problem in the mobile handset. For which the service center M/s Punith Communication and gave the job sheet order no.14102 to the complainant on 05.08.2015.

11.  Accordingly after three or four days the complainant received a call from the mobile number 911166103449 from the gionee care asking the complainant about the problem in the mobile handset that is gionee E-7 Elife(324 B) black colour smart phone where int he complainant explained about the problem in the gionee E-7 Elife (324 B) black colour smart phone by way of reply the gionee care stated that the problem in the hand set will be enquired properly and make corrections to set the mode of functioning of the cell phone in a proper order then only the mobile handset will be returned back to the complainant.

12. That complainant visited the  service center that is opposite party no.3 after few days wherein the opposite party no.3 handed back the complainants mobile stating that the mobile has got repaired and now the handset is in a proper mode of functioning.

13. After receiving back the gionee E-7 Elife (324 B)  black colour smart phone the complainant checked the handset is upgraded to KIT KAT version. But when the complainant checked the camera zooming it was found that the zooming was changed to 4x zooming there by reducing its capacity but then also zooming clarity was not at all clear by which the pictures captured in the mobile seemed to be blur as such the problem in the handset was not at all solved even by the opposite party no.3.

14.  Hence as the problem in camera zooming has not being solved properly and by which the complainant is not able to use the handset as per the advertisement forecasted by the opposite party no.1 that is the gionee company and thereby causing huge loss to the complainant by selling such a bad quality mobile handset has cheated the customer that is the complainant. Therefore complainant prays for the relief as claimed in the complaint.

15. Notice to the opposite party no.1 and 2 duly served remained absent and they were placed exparte.

16. The complainant has filed chief examination affidavit and documents in support of his contention written arguments filed, oral arguments heard, reserved for orders.

17. Heard arguments.

18. The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the complainant prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party by selling defective handset to the complainant and thereby prove that is entitle for the relief sought?

2. What order?

19. Our answer to the above points is as follows;

1. Point No.1: In the affirmative.
2. Point No.2: As per final order for the following;

REASONS

20 . Point No.1:-   that the complainant has purchased Gionee mobile phone E-7 Elife (324 B) on 10.08.2014 from the first opposite party by paying  Rs. 27,000/-  and one year warranty issued granted by the opposite party. and thereafter the said handset functioned properly for some time. Further after the lapse of 5 months the problem with handset started as per the  averments made in the complaint.  In spite of complainant approach the opposite party did not  rectify the same properly and  there is no proper response from the opposite party and to support his claim complainant has produced job sheets , issued by service center  of opposite party  which clearly establishes the technical problem with the handset. In spite of one or two service the technical problem with the mobile continues. The opposite party were not able to set right the technical defects in the alleged mobile handset. The complainant has produced purchase bill, warranty card and job sheets in respect of mobile. The alleged technical defect in said mobile handset has occurred well within the warranty period.

21. Further in spite of complaint notice the opposite party no.1 and 2 remained absent and placed exparte. In the absence of any version and evidence , from the opposite party side. we are of the view whatever contention taken by the complainant  remained undisputed and it is to be  believed as true and correct and by relying the contention of complainant  we have come to the conclusion  that there is deficiency in service  on the part of opposite party no .1 and 2. For which they are jointly  liable to pay legitimate claim of complainant. Hence we answer point no .1 in the affirmative.

22. From the above discussion we hereby proceed to pass the following :-

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby  allowed in part.
2. The opposite party no .1 and 2 is directed to pay sum of Rs. 27,000/- to the complainant within 30 days of this order with interest at the rate of 12%  p.a from 27.05.2016 till payment made.
3. The opposite party no 1 and 2 is directed to pay of Rs. 2,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days of this order.
4. In default to comply the opposite party shall pay interest at 10% p.a. on the said total sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the date of this order till payment.
5. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party shall undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the CP Act 1986.
6. 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 the  17^th August  2017)  

Shri Thammanna Y.S.,                                 Shri Ramachandra M.S.,    

          Member.                                                          President.