Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

198/2007

D.Anandan - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICONET CELLULAR and another - Opp.Party(s)

G.Mohanarangan

02 Jan 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   22.03.2007

                                                                        Date of Order :   02.12.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

 

C.C.NO.198/2007

TUESDAY THIS 2^nd  DAY OF JANUARY 2018

 

D. Anandan,

No.183/45, New Kamaraj Nagar,

Nehruji Street,

Perambur,

Chennai 600 039.                                                .. Complainant

                                         Vs 

1.  Iconet Cellurar,

By its Manager,

New No.102, Old No.44,

Ground Floor, Spurtank Road,

(Harrington Road Junction),

Chetpet, Chennai 600 031.

 

2. HCL Infinet Limited,

By its Manager,

Shop No.5, Aarthi Chambers,

No.189, Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002.                                               .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Complainant                 :    M/s. G.Mohanarangan & another        

Counsel for opposite party-1         :    M/s. B.Mahendra Naidu

Counsel for opposite party-2         :    Exparte.    

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to deliver the mobile equivalent to Nokia N6600 and to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- for mental agony and Rs.100/- being the cost of the complaint.

1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

        The complainant submit that  he purchased a mobile phone Nokia N6600 bearing IME 35795200 5359113 on 25.3.2006 for a sum of Rs.9800/-.   The complainant further state that during the month of May 2006 the said mobile phone failed to restart.   Hence the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party to rectify the above defects and the same was rectified.  In the mean time the key pad light was not functioning.  Again the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party on 9.8.2006 to rectify the defects.    Inspite of repeated requests and demands the opposite party has not rectified the defects after handing over the phone on 11.9.2006.   The 1^st opposite party  gave a different set IMEI 356640002 84 5587 which also suddenly breakdown while in usage and the Data has been corrupted and deleted.     The complainant was constrained to issue legal notice to the opposite party but  no reply till this date.    As such the act of  the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.    The brief averments in the Written Version filed by the  1^st opposite party are   as follows:

      The   1^st opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The  1^st opposite party submit that the complainant brought the phone for repair under warranty the same was admitted on 23.5.2006.  Repair was  done and handed over to him.   Again the complainant brought the mobile phonefor fault on 9.8.2006 for not functioning of key pad, and repair was done main board replaced and IME 1 No. changed.   Again the complainant brought back the phone for the fault of key pad on 19.10.2006 admitted the phone for repair.  When they want to admit the phone in HCL, the new IME 1 No. was not entered in their record.   Hence they are not ready to accept the phone under warranty through system. But the opposite party spoke to HCL and admitted on 24-10-2006 and got repaired from HCL  and handed over to complainant on 25-10-2006. It is submitted any other disputes on this complaint to be referred to 2^nd party that is  HCL, they  are not  authorized or committed for any warranty repair.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.  Inspite of receipt of notice the 2^nd opposite party  did not appear before this forum and therefore the 2^nd opposite party  set exparte.  

4.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked.  Proof affidavit of 1^st  opposite party not filed and no documents marked on the side of the  1^st  opposite party.

5.   The points for the consideration is: 

1) Whether the complainant is entitled to deliver the mobile after fully repaired or the equivalent to Nokia N6600  as prayed for ?

 

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1000/- for mental agony with cost of Rs.100/- as prayed for ?

 

6.     POINTS 1 & 2 :

       

        Both  parties not turned up to advance any oral arguments for long time after filing their respective written arguments.  Admittedly the complainant purchased a mobile phone Nokia N6600 bearing IME 35795200 5359113 on 25.3.2006 for a sum of Rs.9800/- as per Ex.A1 invoice.   The complainant pleaded and contended that during the month of May 2006 the said mobile phone failed to restart.   Hence the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party to rectify the above defects and the same was rectified.     In the mean time the key pad light was not functioning.  The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party on 9.8.2006 to rectify the defects.    Inspite of repeated requests and demands the opposite party has not rectified the defects and handed over the phone on 11.9.2006.   The 1^st opposite party  gave a different set IMEI 356640002 84 5587 which also suddenly breakdown while in usage and the Data has been corrupted and deleted.   Ex.A2 is the job card is very clear with regard to deposit of the mobile phone for rectification of defects.  Since the opposite parties failed and neglected to rectify the defects and handover the Nokia mobile model N-6600, IMEI NO.357952005359113,  the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice Ex.A3.  The 2^nd opposite party remained exparte.

7.    The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that admittedly the complainant  brought the mobile phone for repair under warranty the same was admitted on 23.5.2006.   Thereafter the complainant brought phone for rectifying the defects in key pad on 9.8.2006 and main key pad was replaced.   But it is not denied that the opposite party gave one another cell phone with different IMEI number.  Further the the 1^st opposite party stated that  on 19.10.2016 the complainant brought the cell phone with fault in key pad.  The 1^st opposite party admitted to the phone in HCL,  the 2^nd opposite party  was not ready with cell phone duly repaired.   Even after repeated request with the 2^nd opposite party who admitted the cell phone and got repaired and handed over to the complainant on 25.10.2006. But there is no record.  The contention of the complainant that the cell phone was  not returned back after duly rectified the defects is also not denied.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is in the considered view that the  opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to return the complaint mentioned mobile i.e. Nokia N6600, after due rectification of all the defects within three months alternatively to pay the mobile  price of  Rs.9800/-  and shall pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.3,000/-  and the points are answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to return the complaint mentioned mobile i.e. Nokia N6600, after due rectification of all the defects within three months alternatively to pay the mobile  price of  Rs.9800/- (Rupees Nine thousand and eight hundred only) and shall pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards mental agony with cost of Rs.3,000/-  (Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant.    

The aboveamounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  2^nd     day  of  January  2018.  

 

MEMBER-I                                                                      PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 25.3.2006  - Copy of Invoice.

Ex.A2- 9.8.2006    - Copy of Service Job sheet.

Ex.A3- 14.11.2006         - Copy of lawyer’s notice.

Ex.A4- 15.11.2006         - Copy of Ack. Card.

Opposite parties’ side document:         Nil

 

 

MEMBER-I                                                                       PRESIDENT.