Date of filing:16.11.2013

                                                                                                       Date of Disposal:7.2.2014

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::

VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

        Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT

                                   SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER

                                   SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L.,            MEMBER

       FRIDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014.

C.C.No.178 OF 2013.

Between :                                                                                                            

Vangalapudi Venkata Ramakrishna, S/o Benna Rao, Hindu,19 years, Business, R/o D.No.4-172, Navodaya School Road, Gandigunta Village, Vuyyuru Mandal, Krishna District.

      ….. Complainant.

And

1. Lakhyani Telecommunications Distributions, Rep., by its Authorized Signatory, Mobile Paradise, D.No.29-37-145, & 145A, Julekha Sayeed Complex, Beside Ramamandiram,Eluru Road, Vijayawada – 2.

2. Pranank Electronics, Sony Authorized Service Center, Rep., by its Authorized

Signatory, D.No.40-6-4A, Opp: Boyapati Buildings, Murali Fortune Hotel Road, Vijayawada – 10.

3. Sony India Private Limited, Rep., by its Regional Customer Care In Charge, Customer

Care Division, Sai Sriyas Krishna Towers, No.72, Poonamallee Road, Gandhi Nagar, Ekkaduthangal, Chennai- 600 032.

…..Opposite Parties.

This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 24.1.2014 in the presence of Sri S.S.C.Bose, Counsel for complainant and opposite party No.1 appearing in person and opposite parties 2 and 3 remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:

O  R  D  E  R

(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S.Sreeram)

This is a complaint filed by complainant under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act with a prayer to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 either to rectify or replace the mobile phone ST 2112 Sony, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, to award costs of Rs.2000/- and other reliefs.

1.         The brief facts of the case which lead to filing the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Mobile phone ST 2112 Sony company made with IMEI No.353811051864422 on 6.11.2012 from the 1^st  opposite party for Rs.10,500/- under bill No.3360.  The said phone covered with warranty for a period of one year for set and six months for the battery charger.  The said phone is functioning with touch screen operations.  While so, the said mobile phone operation stopped working on 24.8.2013 and the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party on the same day who is authorized service center of 3rd opposite party.  But the 2nd opposite party has taken false plea that the phone is soaked in water and declared that the complainant's warranty was cancelled. Thereafter the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and complained about the denial of 2nd opposite party.  The 1st opposite party contacted the 2nd opposite party and confirmed about the cancellation of warranty.  On repair of the set by opposite parties is nothing but deficiency in service.  The complainant got issued a legal notice dt.10.09.2013 to opposite parties 1 and 2 and they received the same.  Thereafter on behalf of 2nd opposite party, the 3rd opposite party got issued reply with false allegations as stand taken by 2nd opposite party through reply dt.4.10.2013.  Hence, the complainant is constrained to file the present complaint.

2.         After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties 1 to 3. The 1st opposite party appeared in person.  The opposite parties 2 and 3 remained absent.  The 1st opposite party filed reply in the form of version admitting the sale of mobile set to complainant and  stated that they have advised the complainant to approach the 2nd opposite party who is authorized service center of 3rd opposite party and that they have mentioned in the bill that warranty provided by company, but not by their shop and service will be done in company authorized center only and finally prayed to dismiss the complaint.

3.         The complainant filed his affidavit reiterating the material averments of his complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A5.  The Proprietor of 1st opposite party filed affidavit and the bill dt.6.11.2012 is marked as Ex.B1.

4.         Heard the complainant and perused the record.

5.         Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in selling defective mobile set to complainant?

1. If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

POINT NO.1:-

6.         On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavit and documents), the admitted facts are that the complainant purchased ST 2112 Sony Model cell phone from the 1st opposite party on 06.11.2012 under Ex.A1 Bill for Rs.10,500/-.  The said bill was also marked on behalf of 1st opposite party as Ex.B1.  According to the said bills, the warranty for the mobile set is one year and battery and charger is six months. It is not in dispute that the said mobile set was manufactured by 3rd opposite party as the 3rd opposite party got issued reply to the notice of complainant.  The grievance of the complainant is that the said phone has stopped working from 24.8.2013 and he approached the 2nd opposite party authorized service center for repairs.  But the 2nd opposite party people informed that the phone is soaked in water and declared that the warranty is cancelled. Having vexed with the attitude of opposite parties, the complainant got issued legal notice under Ex.A2 to opposite parties 1 and 2. Ex.A3 and A4 discloses the receipt of notice by opposite parties 1 and 2.  After receipt of notice, the 3rd opposite party on behalf of 2nd opposite party got issued reply under Ex.A5 stating that upon physical inspection by their authorized service center engineer, it was noticed that the handset was damaged due to liquid ingression and as per the warranty terms and conditions, the service is not covered under warranty.  But to substantiate their contentions as mentioned in the reply under Ex.A5, the opposite parties 2 and 3 have not made the appearance before this Forum and not filed version.  As such the said allegations remained unchallenged as far as they are guided against opposite parties 2 and 3.  Unless the opposite parties 2 and 3 made their appearance and put forth their version regarding the basis on which they have cancelled the warranty as avered in reply notice under Ex.A5, this Forum has no option except to draw an adverse inference that there is no defence for the opposite parties 2 and 3. Further according to complainant and opposite parties the said mobile set has stopped functioning on 24.8.2013, which is clearly within the warranty period.  In view of the above circumstances, it is clear that there is deficiency on part of opposite parties 2 and 3 who are authorized service center and manufacturer of subject cell phone.  So far as 1st opposite party is concerned, the 1st opposite party is only seller of mobile phone manufactured by 3rd opposite party.  Further as seen from the Ex.A1 and B1 bills, it is clear that the warranty is given by company, but not by 1st opposite party and the service will be done in authorized center only.  Further according to complainant, he approached the 2nd opposite party as per the contents mentioned in the Bill.  As such we find no deficiency in service on the part of 1st opposite party. Accordingly this point answered in favour of complainant and against the opposite parties 2 and 3.

9.         According to Section 2(1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act any fault or imperfection or short coming in its quality, potency, performance or standard which is required to be maintained by under any Law for the time being in force or as is claimed by a trader in any manner whatever in relation to any goods comes within the mischief of defective goods.  As per Section 14(1)(a) & (b) the buyer is entitled to remedy by way of either removing the defect or by way of replacing the goods with similar description or by way of return of the price or charges paid by the consumer.

POINT No.2:-

10        In the result, the complaint is allowed partly against opposite parties 2 and 3 and dismissed against 1st opposite party. The opposite parties 2 and 3 are directed to replace the mobile phone of complainant with a defect free one on production of same by complainant within 15 days from the date of this order.  The opposite parties 2 and 3 are further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- compensation and to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- also to complainant. The time for compliance is one month from the date of handing over of the mobile to the 3^rd opposite party by the complainant.  The other claims of the complainant are hereby dismissed.

Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 7^th day of February, 2014.

PRESIDENT                                                MEMBER                                             MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the complainant:                                                        For the opposite parties:-

P.W.1  V.Venkata Ramakrishna                                                    D.W.1 Jitendra Lakhyani               

Complainant                                                                                    1^st opposite party,

(by affidavit)                                                                                      (by affidavit)

DOCUMENTS MARKED

On behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.A.1             06.11.2012    Vat Sales Invoice issued by the 1^st opposite party.       

Ex.A.2            10.09.2013    Office copy of legal notice.

Ex.A.3                .    .              Postal acknowledgement.

Ex.A.4                .    .              Postal acknowledgement.

Ex.A.5            04.10.2013    Letter from the 3^rd opposite party to Dr.Ramanadham – Chamber of Law, Vijayawada.

On behalf of the opposite parties:-

Ex.B.1                        06.11.2012    Sales & Service bill. For Rs.10,500/- issued by the 1^st opposite party.                                                                                                  

                                                                         PRESIDENT