Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/98/2016

R. Ganesh, S/o. R.Anjaiah, aged 40 years, cook, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lot Mobiles Pvt., Ltd., rep. By its authorized Person, - Opp.Party(s)

R.Ganesh

31 Jan 2017

ORDER

         

 

                                                                                                Filing Date:-20-10-2016                                                                                                               Order Date:  31-01-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

PRESENT:- Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                        Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

        TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND

AND SEVENTEEN

 

C.C.No.98/2016

Between

R.Ganesh, S/o. R.Anjaiah,

Aged about 40 years, Cook,

M.R.Palli,

Tirupati-517502,

Chittoor District.                                                                               … Complainant

 

And

1. Lot Mobiles Pvt., Ltd.,

Rep. by its authorized Person,

D.No. 13-3-392(B),

Tilak Road,

Tirupati.

 

2. Lot Mobiles Pvt., Ltd.,

Rep. by its authorized Person,

Lot Towers, D.No. 1-98/8/5/A,

Plot No.3, Image Gardens Lane,

Madhapur,

Hyderabad – 500 081,

Telangana State.

 

3. Universal Insurance Brokers Services (P) Ltd.,

912/A, 9^th Floor, Raghavarathna Towers,

Chiragali Lane, Abids,

Hyderabad – 500 001,

Telangana State.

 

4. Intex Technologies, India Ltd.,

Rep. by its M.D.

D-18/2, Okhla Ind. Area,

Phase-II,

New Delhi – 20.                                                            … Opposite parties

 

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 27.01.2017 and upon perusing the complaint, written arguments of the complainant and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.R.Ganesh, party in person for complaint and opposite party is remained exparte having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite parties 1 to 4 to refund the cost of the mobile of Rs.6,590/- and to pay conveyance expenses spent by him of Rs. 1500/- and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of work at least five working days to visit the first opposite party service centre and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- towards legal expenses.

        2. The brief facts of the case are: The complainant purchased Intex Mobile on 13.02.2016 for a sum of Rs.6,590/- through IMEI number is 911439652092469. The complainant further submits that after purchase of 45 days the said mobile circuits were jammed due to mechanical defect and  on advise of the opposite party no.1 he approached their service centre. The service personnel kept his mobile for one week and returned to him without rectifying the defect. Again the complainant approached the opposite party no.1 and they received the said mobile and stated that they will sent the mobile to the opposite party no.2 office at Hyderabad and asked him it will take one month to repair and to get it rectified. Even after one month the complainant did not get any message from either of the opposite party no.1 or opposite party no.2.  Hence he approached opposite party no.1 several times but they have stated that the said mobile is not repaired and not received from  opposite party no.2. The complainant further submits that he is a master cook by profession and he has been engaging men as his assistants for attending marriages for catering. But because of the defective mobile he has not received any orders of catering for marriage functions. Hence he lost income not less than one thousand per day and also he spent Rs.1500/- towards conveyance charges in order to visit the opposite party no.1 shop from his place. Hence at last the complainant caused a legal notice calling upon the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile, but even after receipt of the said notices the opposite party no. 1 and 2 failed to send the reply notices or to rectify the defective mobile set and handed over the mobile to the complainant. Hence he filed the present complaint.

          3. After receipt of the notice the opposite party 1 to 4 called absent and set exparte.

          4.  The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex.A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of him. The complainant filed his written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

         5.  Now the points for consideration are:               

             (i)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite party?

             (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

             (iii) To what Relief?

         6. Point No:-(i).  The main contention of the complainant that he purchased mobile of Intex Company on 13.02.2016 and in order to prove his contention he filed Ex.A1 and also he has stated that after purchase of 45 days the said mobile started giving trouble. Hence he approached the opposite party no.1 and with the advice of the opposite party no.1 he approached the service centre on 04.04.2016 and service personnel issued handset submission report by stating that the problem is “the phone is dead”. And in order to prove Ex.A2 was marked on behalf of him and also the complainant stated that after 15 days from the date of the submission of the mobile set to the service personal, they failed to rectify the defect. Hence he took the defective mobile and same was handed over the opposite party no.1 and the opposite party no.1 sent the mobile to the opposite party no.2 which is the head office situated at the Hyderabad and stated that it takes one month to return the mobile in perfect condition. Hence even after one month they failed to return the mobile to the complainant and he approached several times to get the mobile from the opposite party no.1 but, they failed to handed over the mobile to the complainant in perfect condition even after several requests made by the complainant. Hence at last he caused a legal notice calling upon the opposite parties on 22.09.2016 for the deficiency of service on part of them. Even after receipt of the notice the opposite parties failed to rectify the defect or return the mobile set in perfect condition. Hence he filed the present complaint and the complainant further stated that because of the in action of the opposite party no.1 in time and failed to rectify the defect in the mobile the complainant missed the opportunity to get the work orders for the marriage functions because by profession he is a cook and use to do the catering service to the functions and marriage functions. Hence he lost the income of Rs.1500/- per day and Rs.5000/- per five days whenever he visit the opposite party. As the complaint contentions remains unchallenged as the opposite party failed to appear and contests their case and the complainant contentions are proved to be unchallenged. And also by the Ex:A1 clearly shows that the complainant purchased the said above mobile on 13.02.2016 and he submitted the above mobile set to the service station on 04.04.2016 which  is within the span of 45 days from the date of purchase which clearly shows that the above said mobile is having manufacturing defect which cannot be rectified. Hence there is clear deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties because they have not taken any steps to rectify the defect in the said mobile and return the same to the complainant. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

         7. Point(ii):-   The complainant clearly stated that he is a cook by profession because of the absence of the mobile he is not able to receive any calls from anybody and he lost the opportunity to get the orders of catering for any functions and marriages. Hence he has stated that he lost Rs.1000/- due to loss of work at least five working days to visit the opposite party no.1 office and service centre i.e.Rs.5000/- and also he has incurred Rs.1500/- towards conveyance charges to visit the opposite party’s shop and service centre and also he has spent Rs.6590/- towards purchase of the mobile. He failed to prove that he lost the opportunity of catering orders and also spent Rs.1500/- towards conveyance charges in way of documents. Hence it is pertinent to grant Rs.6590/- towards the cost of the mobile with interest@ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization and also Rs.3000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and Rs.2000/- towards costs. Accordingly this point is answered.  

         8.Point (iii):-   In view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that there is  deficiency in service on part of the opposite party, and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs, and such a complaint is to be allowed.

          In the result,  this complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 4 jointly and severally to refund the cost of the mobile of Rs.6590/- (rupees six thousand five hundred and ninety only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- (rupees three thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and deficiency in service and to pay Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite parties are further directed to comply with the order within six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which, the compensation amount of Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousand only) also shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of copy of this order till realization.

          Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 31^th day of January, 2017.

          Sd/-                                                                                                                        Sd/-                                                                                      

  Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:  R. Ganesh (Chief Affidavit filed).                  

                                  

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

                                                                             

-NIL-

 

          EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s       

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Receipt for the purchase of mobile. Dt: 13.02.2016. Ex-A1.
	Handset Submission Report. Ex-A2.
	Office copy of Legal Notice. Dt: 22.09.2016 sent to the opposite parties. Ex-A3.
	Acknowledgements 2 in number from opposite parties 1 and 2. Ex-A4.
	My Letter. Dt: 24.08.2016. Ex-A5.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

     Sd/-

President

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

                                               // BY ORDER //

 

                                          Head Clerk/Sheristadar, 

                                              Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant

                  2) The Opposite parties 1 to 4.