This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on 13-04-15                                in the presence of Sri K. Krishna Murthy, advocate for complainant and                       opposite parties remained absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-      The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking the opposite parties to provide a new cell phone of Celcon manufacture worth of Rs.7200/-; Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- for purchasing new cell phone besides costs.

2.      In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

          One G. Mallikharjuna Rao a friend of complainant on 02-02-14 purchased the celkon mobile from Big ‘C’ Mobile Private Limited, Guntur for Rs.7200/-.   The complainant was using the said mobile with the permission of the said Mallikharjuna Rao.   The complainant noticed the defect i.e., ‘charging was not proper’.   The complainant on 19-08-14 handed over the said mobile to the 2^nd opposite party for repair who in turn issued a receipt.  The 2^nd opposite party neither repaired the defect nor handed over the said mobile to the complainant.   The complainant purchased a new mobile for Rs.10,000/-.   The mobile now became an essential article even to a common man.   The said Mallikharjuna Rao pressurized the complainant either to pay the cost of mobile or return his original cell.  The complainant paid cost of mobile to the said Mallikharjuna Rao for want of alternative.   The said mobile is in the custody of the complainant.  The defect occurred during the guarantee period.   The opposite parties though received notice kept quite.  The conduct of the opposite parties in not rectifying the defect and not returning the mobile amounted to deficiency in service.  The complaint therefore may be allowed.

3.  The opposite parties remained exparte.

4.  Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked on behalf of complainant.

5.  Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

          1.       Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency in service?

          2.       Whether the complainant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards cost                   of another mobile?  

3.       Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?

          4.       To what relief? 

6.   POINT No.1:-  The complainant is a consumer within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act as is using the mobile purchased under Ex.A-1 with the consent of the purchaser Mallikharjuna Rao. Under Ex.A-1 the said Mallikharjuna Rao purchased A105+ Celkon mobile plus with IMEI No.911328800755459 for Rs.6,000/- and another mobile C340 Celkon mobile with IMEI No.911357402076683 for Rs.900/- and other accessories worth of Rs.300/-.   Ex.A-2 further revealed that the complainant entrusted the mobile worth of Rs.6,000/-to the 2^nd opposite party on 21-08-14 with the complaint ‘charging not full’. 

7.      The complainant had not mentioned the relationship of Mr.Abdul (OP1) with Celkon Impex Private Limited., in the absence of relationship of the said Mr. Abdul, Celkon Impex Private Limited he cannot be fastened with any liability.   Under Ex.A-1 it was mentioned that service will be done in company authorized service centers only.   The complainant entrusted A105+ mobile to the 2^nd opposite party as seen from Ex.A-2.   The opposite parties remained exparte for the reasons best known to them.   There was no response from the opposite parties even for the notice given by the complainant on 06-12-14.  It has therefore tobe presumed that the 2^nd opposite party did not return the mobile entrusted to him under Ex.A-2 rectifying the defect.   In Ex.A-2 it was mentioned that the instrument was during the period of warrantee.   Therefore the 2^nd opposite party alone is liable to return A105+ mobile after repairing.   In view of the afore mentioned discussion, we answer this point against the 2^nd opposite party only.

8.  POINT No.2:-  The complainant did not file any proof to show that he purchased another mobile for Rs.10,000/- as the 2^nd opposite party failed to return the mobile with defect rectified.   Under those circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to seek that amount. We therefore answer this point against the complainant.     

9.  POINT No.3:-    The complainant claimed Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony.  Now a days mobile became an essential commodity for majority of citizens.   Absence of mobile can cause inconvenience to any person as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the complainant.   Considering the period of delay awarding a sum of Rs.2,000/- as damages in our considered opinion will meet ends of justice.

10.   In the result the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below:

1. The 2^nd opposite party is directed to return the Celkon Mobile A105+ with IMEI No.911328800755459 within a week or to pay Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) to the complainant (being cost of instrument).
2. The 2^nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
3. The 2^nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/-  (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs to the complainant.
4. The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
5. The claim against 1^st opposite party is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 18^th day of April, 2015.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:- NIL

                    PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.