This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of Sri. K. Upender Reddy, Advocate for complainant; and the opposite party called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased Auxus Note-5.5 Octa Core Smart Phone with finger print sensor and 2GB RAM by online vide www.ebay.in for Rs.11,691/-, manufactured and introduced by the opposite party.  After receipt of mobile through courier service, found that it has some material defects while receiving calls, photo taking and video recording, the calls are not allowed instead of having full signal.  Immediately, it was informed to the opposite party.  The opposite party had given some instructions regarding usage but the problem was not solved, so the mobile was replaced with new one.  Thereafter, the opposite party had replaced the mobiles with new ones at 3 times till 12-05-2015 due to arising of same problems.  The complainant further submitted that instead of replacements, the problems were not solved, vexed with the same, issued legal notice on 05-09-2015 by requesting to refund the cost of mobile.  The opposite party had given reply on 01-10-2015 by denying the refund of amount.  Therefore, filed the present complaint by alleging the unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party and prayed to direct it to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and costs.

3.       In support of his case, the complainant filed affidavit and Exhibits    A-1 to A-8.

4.       Despite service of notice, the opposite party neither appeared nor filed its counter.  After hearing the complainant, the matter was posted for orders.

5.       In view of above circumstances, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-        

          It is a fact that the complainant had booked Auxus Note 5.5 Octa Core Smart Phone with one year warranty through ebay online shop by paying Rs.11,691/- from his account through SBH, Aswapuram Branch, Khammam District, evidenced under exhibits A-5 & A-7.  Exhibit A-7 is the Bank Statement, showing the details regarding the transfer of Rs.11,691/- on 18-11-2014 to www.ebay.in and exhibit A-6 is the order confirmation from www.ebay.in  towards receiving of purchase amount for Auxus Note-5.5 Octa Core Smart Phone with finger print sensor, 2GB RAM NFC HD I Bery.  Exhibit A-1 is the consignment cover, filed, to prove the consignment, received by the complainant from opposite party through DTDC Couriers.  According to the complainant, after receipt of said product, he had observed some defects relating to receiving of signals, photo shooting and video recording, immediately, those were informed to the opposite party through e-mail but the defects were not rectified despite making some changes in software according to the instructions of technical persons of opposite party through online.  Therefore, the mobile was replaced by the opposite party with new one.  Thereafter, the opposite party had replaced the same with new ones at 3 times due to same problems.  In order to prove his allegations, the complainant had placed copy of e-mail complaint, marked under exhibits A-6.  Exhibit A-2 is the legal notice dt. 05-09-2015, issued, by requesting the opposite party to refund Rs.11,691/-, paid by him towards cost of the mobile as he has been facing the same problems even after receipt of 4 pieces by replacing the defective mobiles.  The reply notice was marked under exhibit A-3, through which, the opposite party denied its liability in refunding of cost of mobile along with other allegations of legal notice.  But it did not appear before this Forum to counter blast the averments of complaint.  In view of above circumstances, this matter was posted for orders after hearing the complainant.  And also after having observed the material on record, we are of the opinion that the facts, which leads to the present case on hand, definitely causes much inconvenience to the complainant and also amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.  The replacement at 3 times itself clearly speaks that the said model has some manufacturing defects, therefore, the opposite party is liable to refund the cost of mobile to the complainant as it is just and proper and as such the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

6.       In the result the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to refund Rs.11,691/- to the complainant, collected towards cost of Auxux Note-5.5 Octa Core Smart Phone with finger print technology and to pay Rs.1,000/- towards damages for causing inconvenience within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the amount shall carry interest @9% per annum.  Further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs.  The complainant is directed to send the mobile to the opposite party on proper acknowledgement immediately after receipt of said amounts.

           Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 26^th day of September, 2016.

                                                  FAC President               Member       

                                           District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party  

       None                                                                             None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party

FAC President               Member

     District Consumer Forum, Khammam.