Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/358/2011

Geddam Veerabhadra Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAXX Mobile Communication Limited - Opp.Party(s)

D. Venkatesh

27 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:19-09-2011 

                                                                                                Date of Order:27-02-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

                                3. Sri C.V. Rao, M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                         Friday, the 27^th day of February, 2015.

                             CONSUMER CASE No.358/2011

Between:-

Sri Geddam Veerabhadra Rao, S/o late Sankara Rao,

 Hindu, aged 30 years, residing at D. No. 12-613,

Gandhi Nagar, Sector-I, Arilova, Visakhapatnam.

                                                                                        ….. Complainant

And:-

1.MAXX Mobile Communications Ltd., represented

   by its Authorized Signatory, Regd. Office 106,

   Chawda Commercial Centre, Mind Space, New Link

   Road, Chincholi Bunder, Malad (West) Mumbai-400 064.

2.Sri Manjunadha Communications, represented by its

   Authorized Signatory, M/s. Nookambika Electronics,

   Authorised Service Center for MAXX Mobiles, Shop No.3,

   1^st Floor, PNR Complex, Opposite Pen School,

   Akkayyapalem Main Road, Visakhapatnam.

3.MEMMo Mobiles & More, MEMMO Global Tele

   Communications Pvt. Ltd., represented by its

   Authorised Signatory, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam-16.

                                                                                           …  Opposite Parties

                     

This case coming on 25.02.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri Duppala Venkatesh, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri S. Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the 2^nd Opposite Party and Sri N. Shiva Raja Kumar, Advocate for the 3^rd Opposite Party and the 1^st Opposite Party is dismissed and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

        (As per Smt. K. Saroja Honourable Lady Member on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant purchased a MAXX GC 735 IME No. 98005900034163 from the 3^rd Opposite Party on 20.09.2010 vide Cash Bill No. 0019724 for an amount of Rs.4,999/-, the said unit was given 12 months warranty from the date of purchase.    After purchase of the said mobile, the same was worked properly for some time and in the first week of July, 2011 the Complainant found that the cell is not charging and immediately on 11.07.2011 the Complainant had approached the 2^nd Opposite Party who is the service center and handover it for repairs.   The 2^nd Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the handset has a problem of not charging and that there is a problem related to main board i.e., tracks had been damaged, so needs to replace the entire main board and the 2^nd Opposite Party assured that the problem will be rectified within one week.    Accordingly the Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party and requested to return back the handset, but the 2^nd Opposite Party had postponed the same.   On 25.07.2011, the 2^nd Opposite Party refused to replace the defected items and the same was endorsed on the Service Job Sheet, then the Complainant issued a legal notice to all the Opposite Parties.   The Opposite Parties 2 and 3 received the same, but did not give any reply, the first Opposite Party was returned with an endorsement “unclaimed”.   Hence, this Complaint.

 

2.       a)  to direct the Opposite Parties to replace the defected handset with a new one or to refund the cost of the handset i.e., Rs.4,999/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e., 20.09.2010;  

          b) to direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony to the Complainant;

          c) Pass to pay costs of this Complaint; and  

          d) Pass such other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

         

3.       The 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from their counters.

          The claim against the 1^st Opposite Party is dismissed.

 

4.       The 2^nd Opposite Party stated in their counter that the Complainant’s      handset has a problem so needs to replace the entire main board.   The said damage has been caused to the handset due to improper use by the Complainant.   The said problem might be caused to the handset if it was fell down on surface etc.   As there was no approval from the 1^st Opposite Party this Opposite Party did not rectify the problem.   The problem that was occasioned to the handset of the Complainant, the Opposite Party will not be rectified at free of cost.   So, it was informed to the Complainant while handed over the handset to this Opposite Party, but the Complainant did not express his readiness to rectify the problem with his expenses.  So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.   So, they have no  liability to pay any reliefs asked by the Complainant.

 

5.       The 3^rd Opposite Party stated that the Complainant had purchased the handset on 20.09.2010 and used a continuous period of 10 months and after lapse of 10 months, the Complainant stated that the cell is not charging.     It may be due to the misusage by the Complainant.   The Complainant at no point of time approached the 3^rd Opposite Party.   The 3^rd Opposite Party is only a dealer, so they have no liability to pay any reliefs asked by the Complainant.

 

6        At the time of enquiry, the Complainant and the 3^rd Opposite Party filed affidavit, all the parties filed written arguments to support their contention.      Exs.A1 to A7 are marked for the Complainant.    No documents were marked for the Opposite Parties.    Heard both sides.

 

7.       Ex.A1 is the Cash Bill issued by the 3^rd Opposite Party dated 20.09.2010.   Ex.A2 is the User Manual.  Ex.A3 are the two Cash Bill along with Service Job Sheet issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party.   Ex.A4 is the Legal Notice along with Postal Receipts.   Ex.A5 is the notice given by the Complainant to the 1^st Opposite Party and it was returned along with acknowledgement.   Exs.A6 and Ex.A7 are acknowledgments of the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties.

 

8.       The fact shown from Ex.A3 reveals that the Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party who is the Service Center of the said mobile phone on 11.07.2011.   The problem of the mobile phone noted as charger removed, bad contact charging.   The 2^nd Opposite Party had taken mobile phone for repair.   They find that there is a problem related to main board i.e., tracks had been damaged, so needs to replace the entire main board, but they cannot repair this main board.  

 

 

 

9.       The point that would arise for determination in the case is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.   Whether the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

 

10.       After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the Complainant had purchased the mobile phone on 20.09.2010, this complaint was filed on 12.09.2011 i.e., only one week before the expiry of its warranty.   We observed that the Complainant used the said mobile phone 10 months after its purchase without any interruption.    As per Ex.A3 the Complainant first time approached Service Center as the mobile is not charging properly and handover the same to the 2^nd Opposite Party.   The 2^nd Opposite Party who endorsed on the Job Sheet “there is a problem related to main board i.e., tracks had been damaged so needs to replace entire this main board, but we cannot repair this main board.   The Opposite Parties 2 and 3 are only service center and dealer of the said mobile phone.   As the Complainant purchased the mobile phone and used it without any problem for 10 months, so there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd Opposite Party.   Moreover, the 2^nd Opposite Party who is the service center handover the mobile phone and stated that there is a problem in the mother board, it needs to replace the entire main board.     So, they cannot repair the said mobile phone, if any defects/problems arise in the mobile phone, they will rectify it, but this mobile phone has a problem in the main board.   So, the manufacturers only can replace the mobile phone.    So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd Opposite Party.

 

          The Complainant failed to take steps against the 1^st Opposite Party who is the manufacture, so the case against the 1^st Opposite Party is dismissed.    If there is any manufacture defects or problem will arise within days or week, but in the present the case, the said mobile phone worked properly nearly 10 months, it seems that there is no manufacturing defect in the said mobile phone.   We are of the opinion, that there is negligence on the part of the Complainant, while using the said mobile phone.   Hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

 

 

 

11.     In the result, this Complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this 27^th day of February, 2015.

 

   Sd/-                                       Sd/-                                    Sd/-

President                            Male Member                      Lady Member

                                     

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	20.09.2010	Cash Bill issued by the 3rd OP in favour of the Complainant.	Original
Ex.A02		User Manual book issued by the 3rd OP	Original
Ex.A03	17.02.11 and 11.04.2004	Two Cash Bills issued by the 2nd OP in favour of the Complainant.	Original
Ex.A04	01.08.2011	Registered Lawyer’s Notice issued by the Complainants counsel to Ops along with 3 Postal Receipts	Original
Ex.A05	12.08.2011	Returned Postal Cover of 1st OP	Original
Ex.A06	03.08.2011	Acknowledgement from 2nd OP	Original
Ex.A07	03.08.2011	Acknowledgement from 3rd OP	Original

For the Opposite Parties:-            

                  

                                                -Nil-                     

   Sd/-                                Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

President                       Male Member                                             Lady Member