Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/218/2014

Pithani Varaha Venkata Lakshmana Siva Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Memo Global Tele Communications Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Lodagala Krishna

31 Dec 2014

ORDER

Reg.of the Complaint:17-07-2014

                                                                                                                                 Date of Order:31-12-2014

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                   Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDHA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                             Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member, M.A., B.L.,

                                            

 

WEDNESDAY, THE 31^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014

CONSUMER CASE NO.218/2014

 

BETWEEN:

PITHANI VARAHA VENKATA LAKSHMANA SIVA PRASAD

S/O LATE RAMASWAMY, HINDU, AGED 31 YEARS,

R/AT D.NO.37-2-37/1, SANKURUPETA, OLD ITI JUNCTION,

VISAKHAPATNAM-7.

…COMPLAINANT

AND:

1.MEMO GOLOBAL  TELE COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD.,

REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SITUATED AT D.NO.30-15-133,

OPP: POST OFFICE, BESIDE HOMOEO, DABAGARDENS,

VISAKHAPATNAM-20.

2.PADMAJA SMART CARE, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR

CELKON AUTHORIZED SERVICING CENTRE,

SITUATED AT D.NO.49-34-32/3, NAIDU COMPLEX,

AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM-16.

…OPPOSITE PARTIES

This case coming on 24-12-2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of SRI K.PARTHASARADHI, Advocate for the Complainant, and the OPs being set exparte, 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 CelkonMobile, Model No.A 97-I, IMEI No.911215450464005 on 06-11-2013 by paying Rs.5,200/- to the 1^st OP.The 1^st OP gave one year warranty for any manufacturing defect of the said mobile phone.After 3 months of its purchase i.e., 21.02.14 touch screen of the said mobile phone was not functioning. Immediately on the next day, the complainant approached the 1^st OP and informed about the problem and on the advice of the 1^st OP, the complainant approached the 2^nd OP and handed over the mobile phone to the 2^nd OP for rectifying its defect. The 2^nd OP promised the complainant to rectify the problem and hand over the same to the complainant within one week and also gave a Mobile No.9676669955 for any enquires. In spite of any requests made by the complainant, the OP did not rectify the mobile phone. But finally, on 29-05-2014, the 2^nd OP gave another mobile to the complainant in place of the original complainant’s mobile. Unfortunately, this mobile was not functioned properly then the complainant returned the mobile phone to the 2^nd OP on the same day i.e., 29-05-2014. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 6-6-2014 and both the OPs were received the notices but did not give any reply nor return the mobile phone cost to the complainant till now. Hence, this complaint:

2. Directing the Opposite Parties to refund the mobile cost of Rs5,200/- to the complainant together with accrued interest @ 24% p.a., from the date of purchase till the date of realization.

3. Directing the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for pain and suffering, mental agony, business loss and financial loss caused by the OPs.

4. Directing the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards costs of Complaint; and

5. Grant such other relief (s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the complaint.

2.       The Opposite Parties did not resist the claim of the Complainant as they       were set exparte and remained exparte.

3.       At the time of enquiry, the complainant filed Evidence Affidavit as well as written arguments to support his contention. Exhibits A1 to A6 are marked for the Complainant. Heard the complainant.

4.       Exhibit A1 is the Invoice No.MSIDG/130120 issued by the 1^st OP to the Complainant dated 06-11-2013, Exhibit A2 is the Service Job Sheet issued by  the 2^nd OP to the Complainant dated 22-02-2014, Exhibit A3 is the Registered Lawyer’s Notice got issued by the complainant to the OPs, Exhibit A4 is the Postal Receipts in 2 numbers dated 6-6-2014, Exhibit A5 is the Acknowledgement from OP1 and Exhibit A6 is the Acknowledgement from OP2.

5.       The fact shown from Exhibit A2 is that the Complainant handed over his mobile phone with the 2^nd OP, and the technician of the 2^nd OP noted the problem as “touch not working” on 22-02-2014.

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

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs? if so, Whether the Complainant is entitled to the   reliefs asked for?

7.       After careful perusal of the case record, this forum finds that the Complainant used the mobile phone only 3 months after its purchase and handed over the mobile phone to the 2^nd OP as the touch screen is not functioned properly. The problem was noted by the technician of the 2^nd OP according to Exhibit A2, it reveals that the OP technician noted the problem as touch not working, but did not rectify the problem nor refund the cost of the mobile phone to the complainant. It amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. It is the bounden duty of the OPs to rectify the problem in the mobile or refund the amount of the mobile when the problem was not rectified. Hence, the complainant is entitled to refund the cost of the mobile phone with interest, some compensation and costs too.

8.       In the result, this Complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite Parties 1 and 2: 1) to pay an amount of Rs.5,200/- (Rupees Five Thousand and Two Hundred only) with 9% p.a., interest from 6-6-2014 till the date of actual realization; 2) to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only); 3) to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the complainant.  Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only). Time for compliance, one month from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 31^st day of December, 2014.

 

Sd/-                                                                                                       Sd/-                                                        Sd/-

M.MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT                                                L.MEMBER  

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A-1	06-11-2013	Invoice bearing No.MSIDG/130120 issued by the 1st OP to the complainant	Original
A-2	22-02-2014	Service job sheet issued by the 2nd OP to the complainant	Original
A-3	06-06-2014	Registered lawyer’s Notice got issued by the complainant to the OPs	Office Copy
A-4	06-06-2014	Postal Receipts 2 in number	Originals
A-5		Acknowledgement from OP1	Original
A-6		Acknowledgement from OP2	Original

 

Exhibits Marked for the OPs     -nil-

 

          Sd/-                                                                                       Sd/-                                                        Sd/-

M.MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT                                                L.MEMBER