COMPLAINT FILED: 29-10-2009 <br /> DISPOSED ON: 14-07-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 14TH JULY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT :-SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2533/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dr. V S Ramakrishnan Nair, <br /> S/o Sankunni Pillai,<br /> Aged about 67 years, <br /> C/o Megastar Astrology,<br /> No.2/21-23, 32nd Cross, <br /> 9th Main, Jayanagar,<br /> 4th Block, <br /> Bangalore-11.<br /> <br /> Advocate Sri. Mento Issac<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Meridien Mobile Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> 100, Okhla Industrial <br /> Estate,<br /> Delhi, New Delhi-110014,<br /> a private Limited Company,<br /> <br /> Represented by its <br /> Managing director,<br /> <br /> 2. Pranav Infocom,<br /> 99, Surya Mansion,<br /> 7th Main, 4th Block <br /> Jayanagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 011<br /> <br /> Proprietorship concern <br /> Represented by its <br /> Proprietor.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay Rs. 9,849/- towards the cost of mobile phone and Rs.25,000/- towards compensation on the allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:<br /> <br /> Complainant purchased a Mobile Phone Model ‘Fly DS 500’ bearing IMEI No. 357644020242511 from OP on 22.10.2008 for a sum of Rs.9,849/-. The Invoice dt: 22.10.2008 issued by OP is produced. On 27.10.2008 charger of the said mobile failed to function as a result complainant was unable to use the mobile. On 31.10.2008, complainant approached OP-2, who is a service centre of OP-1. OP-2 failed to rectify the same. On 06.12.2008 complainant issued a letter to OP-1 complaining about inaction and non-response of OP-2. After lapse of 71 days complainant got the charger of the handset repaired by OP-2 on 05.01.2009. On 19.02.2009 again the said mobile phone went out of order complainant gave same to M/s. Kochi Service Centre on 20.02.2009. Complainant gave two letters on 22.04.2009 and on 30.04.2009 calling upon OP to do the needful. After lapse of 82 days on 13.05.2009 the mobile phone was repaired and handed over to the complainant on 02.06.2009. Again the said handset started malfunctioning making it practically impossible to make calls. Due to problem in the speaker, complainant was unable to hear the incoming calls. On 03.06.2009 complainant sent the said handset along with other accessories to OP-1 calling upon OP-1 to replace the same with good set or to refund the money. So far no response was received by the complainant from OP-1 regarding the same. Complainant caused legal notice to OP-1. There was no response. Complainant used the handset only for a period of 70 days, for rest of 153 days; same was in the service Centre of OP-1 and was nonfunctional during that period. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service. Under the circumstances he was advised to file this complaint for the necessary relief’s.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance OP 1 filed its version mainly contending that complainant approached OP-2 on 31.10.2008 and charger was replaced on 23.12.2008. Thereafter complainant not visited the Service Centre again but complainant got his phone repaired in Kochi, which is an authorized Service Centre or not is not known OP tried to settle the matter out of court and offered new handset. But complainant was bent upon taking a much more expensive phone in replacement. Complainant purchased Mobile Phone from M/s. Mobile Store in Cochin, and made the payment to it. OP-1 does not sell the phones directly by to customer. Complainant never got issued any letter dt: 06.12.2008, 22.04.2009 and on 30.04.2009 or any legal notice as such there is no question of replying to the same. If mobile phone got repaired by unauthorized service Centre, OP-1 is not liable for the same. Among other grounds. OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. OP-2 filed its version mainly contending that complainant purchased Mobile handset Model ‘Fly DS 500’ at Essar Telecom. Retail Ltd., at Cochin in Kerala State on 22.10.2008. This forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. OP-2 admits that complainant approached OP-2 on 31.10.2008 for repair of the handset purchased by him at Cochin. There was a shortage of adopter to the OP-1. Due to shortage of adopter OP-2 could not replace the Mobile to the complainant in time. After receipt of adopter from OP-1, the OP-2 has delivered the mobile adopter to the complainant on 23.12.2008 itself after repairing. OP-2 is not aware of any notice from the complainant. Among other grounds OP-2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. During the pendency of the proceedings; when the matter was posted for arguments; on 19.06.2010, OP’s official handed over new mobile set to the complainant in replacement of old one. On 24.06.2010 the Advocate representing the complainant reported to the forum that new set is good and working satisfactorily. Further submitted that the cost of the new set is around Rs.6,000/-. Complainant is entitled for the difference of amount and prayed for to pass the necessary order. The cost of the old Mobile phone Fly DS 500 being Rs.9,849/- which is in the possession of OP-1, now OP-1 has replaced new set of Mobile to the complainant in the place of old one casting around Rs.6,000/-. Hence we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for difference of amount of Rs.3,500/- from OPs. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed in part. OP 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.3,500/- being the difference of amount of old Mobile Fly DS 500 and new mobile handset replaced to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 14th day of July 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> gm.<br />