TUESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014

C.C.NO.22 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

SRI GEDALA BHAVANI  SANKAR S/O KANAKARAO,

HINDU, AGED 40 YEARS, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,

RESIDING AT D.NO.1-147, REVENUE COLONY,

K.L.PURAM, VIZIANAGARAM.

                                              …COMPLAINANT                 

AND

1.THE MANAGER, JAIN COMMUNICATIONS,

FRANCHISES OF RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS,

G-3 RK PLAZA, MAYURI JUNTION,

VIZIANAGARAM.

2.THE MANAGER, LAKSHMI NARASIMHA CELL

COMMUNICATIONS, SHOP NO.6 CLOCK TOWER,

VASU COMPLEX, VIZIANAGARAM.

              …OPP.PARTIES

      This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of SRI CH.S.P.PRABHAKARA RAO, Advocate for the Complainant and SRI P.DANUNJAYA RAO, Advocate for the Opposite Parties, and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

AS PER SRI T.SRIRAMA MURTHY, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking reliefs to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.3,100/- towards the value OF THE cell and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards damages on the following averments;

The Complainant purchased a Mobile Cell by name Karbonn, R.C.470 for Rs.3,100/- on 13-12-2010 from OP1 and as there was defect in the cell, the complainant handed over the same to the OP2 on 8-10-2011 for its repair. The complainant visited the shop of OP2 for many a time and made a request to repair the cell but of no avail. On 16-08-2012, the complainant got issued a notice to the Ops to get the cell repaired and to hand over the same in working condition and the Ops having received the said notice did not respond to the same. Hence, this complaint.

Though notice was served on OP2, , he did not come to court to contest the matter.

The 1^st OP filed counter traversing the material allegations made in the complaint and disputed the relationship of complainant did not purchase cell form them and they are not aware of the handing over the cell for its repairs to 2^nd OP on 8-10-2011 and that the complainant did not approach them at any time to get the cell repaired. It is averred that as the complainant did not specify as to the nature of repairs required and as he did not implead the manufacturer of the cell, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is averred that the OP1 is not manufacturer or dealer and as such, the complainant did not approach them at any time to get the cell repaired. As the complaint merits no consideration, the same is liable to be dismissed.

In furtherance of complainant’s case, affidavit evidence of complainant is filed and he got marked Exhibits A1 to A4 on his behalf. Per contra, the 1^st OP filed the affidavit evidence of RW1 and no documents is filed on its behalf. Perused the material placed on record and heard the counsel of respective parties.

Now the point for consideration is, whether there is any deficiency in service or dereliction of the duties on the part of the Opposite Parties and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for?

Basing on the material placed on record, the Learned Advocate for the Complainant has contended that the complainant purchased  a cell from 1^st OP and the 2^nd Op is  the authorized repairer and when the cell required repairs, the complainant approached the 2^nd OP to get it repaired and handed over the cell tot hem on 8-10-2011 and as the 2^nd OP did not repair it, the complainant got issued a notice calling upon him to repair the cell and as he did not repair the same, there is any amount of deficiency in service on their part and as such, the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for?

As against the above said contentions, the learned counsel for the 1^st OP has contended that the complainant did not purchase any Cell from them  and did not approach them at any time to get its repaired through 2^nd OP and as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st OP, the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

To prove the complainants’ case the complainant filed affidavit evidence and got marked A1 Receipt dated 13-10-2010 as Exhibit  A1 and Service Record as Exhibit A2, Office copy of the Notice as Exhibit A3, Postal acknowledgements  of OP1 as Exhibit A4. As seen from the contents of complaint, the complainant purchased a Mobile Cell on 13-12-2010 from OP1. To prove the said fact, he filed Exhibit A1 which he described in the list of documents as purchase bill but as seen from its contents, it is an estimation given by Sivasai Enterprises and the same has nothing to do with the cell transaction between the complainant and Ops 1 and 2. Since, Ex A1 is not a purchase bill, no reliance can be placed on the said document to believe that it is a purchase bill. Since it is an estimation given by Sivasai enterprises, it has no relevancy with this case. Even if it is believed that the cell was purchased from the 1^st O, it can not be said that there is deficiency of service on its part, as the complainant did not approach the OP1 at any time with a request to get it repaired through the 2^nd OP, who is the alleged authorized repairer of 1^st OP. The complainant did not file any document to show that 2^nd OP is the authorized repairer of 1^st OP  and to the direction of the 1^st OP, he issued Exhibit A2 service card. Hence, under the said facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the men of OP1 were not in dereliction of their duties and there is no deficiency on their part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.

As per complainant, on 8-10-2011, he approached the 2^nd OP to get the cell repaired and though the 2^nd OP received the said cell, he did not attend to the repairs not he returned the cell to him. To prove the above said contentions, the complainant filed service card and got the same marked as Exhibit A2. As seen from its contents on 8-10-2011, the complainant handed over the cell to OP2 to get it repaired and when OP2 did not attend to the repairs, the complainant issued Exhibit A3 Notice and though the said notice was received by them, they did not give any reply to the same. After this case was filed, a notice was sent to the 2^nd OP for his appearance in the Forum and though the notice was served on them, they did not appear in the Forum to contest the matter. As seen from the contents of Exhibit A3 as well as the complaint, the complainant visited the shop OP2 on 8-10-2011 and handed over the cell to them o get it repaired and as OP did not attend to the repairs  and as he did not return back the cell to the complainant, the present complaint was filed.  Since, the OP2 did not come to the Forum to contest the matter, the averments made in the complaint and Exhibits A3 remained uncontroverted. As the OP2 did not repair the cell, nor returned it back to the complainant, it can safely be inferred that he is in dereliction of his duty and as there is deficiency of service on his part.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed against the 1^st OP but in the circumstances, without costs. The complaint is partly allowed and the OP2 is directed to attend to the repairs of the cell and to return back the same to the complainant within fortnight from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 12^th day of October, 2014.

MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT

C.C.No.15/2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For complainant:-                   For opposite parties:-

PW 1                               RW 1

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:-

For Opposite Parties:-       -nil-

 MEMBER                                                                                   PRESIDENT