Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/35/2015

P.Chinnaraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, Universal Telecommunications India Pvt Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

S.Viduthalaivalavan

12 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  18.02.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  12.02.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

MONDAY THE 12^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

 

C.C.NO.35/2015

 

 

P.Chinnaraj,

#173, Thambu Chetty Street,

Chennai – 600 001.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1. The Manager,

Univercell Telecommunications

India Pvt Ltd.,

No.241 T.T.K.Road,

Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018.

 

2.M/s.LG ELECTRONICS PVT LTD.,

Rep by its Manager,

AA 11 2^nd Avenue “Fathima Tower”,

Anna Nagar West,

Chennai – 40.

 

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 25.02.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. S.Viduthalaivalavan

Counsel for 1st Opposite Party                : Mr.R.Gobi

Counsel for 2nd Opposite Party                : Ex – parte (on 11.05.2015)

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to refund the cost of the mobile and compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased a LG mobile phone from the 1^st opposite party/dealer on payment of Rs.11,100/- which had a warranty of one year. On 08.02.2014 the said mobile failed to work and the same was informed to the 1^st opposite party and handed over the mobile to him. After inspection of the mobile the 1^st opposite party informed him that the product needs some time for repair and the spares for the mobile are not available. Hence the 1^st opposite party retained the mobile.

          2. Thereafter the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party to return the mobile after repair. However, the 1^st opposite party turned down his requests as deaf ears. Hence the complainant felt that the product is having manufacturing defect. The 2^nd opposite party manufactured the said mobile. Hence the complainant issued legal notice dated 13.06.2014 to them and though the 1^st opposite party received the same and failed to reply. Hence the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service for manufacturing and selling the defective mobile to the complainant and hence the complainant filed this complaint to refund the cost of the mobile and compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental agony with cost of the complaint.

          3. The 2^nd opposite party called remained absent and he was set ex-parte.

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st opposite party is the dealer of the 2^nd opposite party manufacturer. This opposite party admits that he has sold the product to the complainant.  This opposite party has not given the warranty and the warranty was issued only by the manufacturer. This opposite party taken the service in goodwill and forwarded the same to the authorized service centre of the manufacturer and after service he returned to the opposite party.  If the product having manufacturing defect the same will be replaced. This opposite party is only a seller and he is not liable to the complainant and has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant purchased a LG mobile phone on payment of Rs.11,100/- on 03.08.2013 from the 1^st opposite party/ dealer under Ex.A1 purchased bill issued by him and the 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the said mobile.

          7. The complainant alleged deficiency against the opposite parties is that on 08.02.2014 the mobile failed to work and on the same day he has handed over to the  1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party acknowledged the said mobile in Ex.A2 service request form and however he had not returned the same after rectification to the complainant and hence the mobile is having manufacturing defect and hence the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service for manufacturing and selling defective mobile and further the 1^st opposite party failed to return the mobile to the complainant.

          8. The 2^nd opposite party remained ex-parte. The 1^st opposite party would contend that he had the sold the mobile which was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party and he had also received the mobile and  forwarded to the authorized service centre of the manufacturer and after service he returned the mobile to the opposite party and hence he has not committed deficiency in service.

          9. Ex.A2 service request form issued to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party after receiving mobile from the complainant which was sold by him to the complainant on 03.08.2013. In Ex.A2 service request form reveals that on the date of handing over the mobile warranty was in force and further the issue reported that the mobile is in dead condition. Though the 1^st opposite party would said in the written version that the mobile was serviced by the authorized service centre and returned to the opposite party, he had not stated that he had returned the same to the complainant. Therefore the 1^st opposite party failed to return the mobile to the complainant proves that the 1^st opposite party has committed deficiency in service.

          10. The 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the mobile purchased by the complainant. The 1^st opposite party would state in the written version that after service he had returned to the opposite party, we mean that he had returned to the 2^nd opposite party/manufacturer. The 2^nd opposite party had not taken any steps to return the mobile to the complainant. Further Ex.A2 service request issued by the 1^st opposite party discloses that the mobile was received by him in dead condition proves that the mobile is having inherent defect and that is why both the opposite parties have not returned the mobile to the complainant after service and hence we hold that both the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.

11. POINT NO:2

          The complainant purchased mobile on 03.08.2013 and entrusted the mobile on 08.02.2014 to the 1^st opposite party for service within a period about 6 months of purchase. Therefore, from 08.02.2014 onwards the complainant was unable to use the mobile which was purchased by him on investing a sum of Rs.11,100/-. Having the opposite parties received the mobile and failed to return to the complainant after service establishes that the complainant is entitled for refund of the cost of the mobile a sum of Rs.11,100 with 9% interest from the date 08.02.2014  from the opposite parties.  The opposite parties sold the defective mobile and committed deficiency in service and also caused mental agony to the complainant and for such unfair trade practice and for all the above heads the opposite parties 1 & 2 can be directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for the same, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly or severally are ordered to refund a sum of Rs.11,100/-(Rupees eleven thousand and one hundred only) towards cost of the product with 9% interest from 08.02.2014 to till the date of this order to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 12^th day of February 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 03.08.2013                            Purchase bill

Ex.A2 dated 08.02.2014                            Job Order

Ex.A3 dated 28.10.2014                            Legal Notice to opposite parties

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

 

                                      ……. NIL …..

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT