Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/53/2015

R.Bhavani Sowmya, Rep. by her father, R.V.Narayana Murthy(GPA holder) - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S B New Mobile Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Sales Executive - Opp.Party(s)

M.Subrahmanyam

29 Sep 2016

ORDER

 

 

                                                                                                Filing Date:-30-11-2015                                                                                                               Order Date:  29-09-2016

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                       Smt. T. Anitha, Member

 

           THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO     

                                                  THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

C.C.No.53/2015

Between

Miss. R. Bhavani Sowmya,

D/o. R.V. Narayana Murthy,

Student, rep. by her father GPA holder,

Residing at Door No. # 201,

18-3-62/32, Shanthi Nagar,

Khadi Colony, Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                               … Complainant

 

And

1.M/s B New Mobile Pvt. Ltd.,

Shop No.101 & 117,

Central Park,

TIRUPATI-517501

Chittoor District.

Rep. by its Sales Executive.

 

2. Aditya Mobiles (Service Centre),

LAVA Customer Care Centre,

#5, Municipal Shoping Complex,

Opp. Indira Maidanam,

TIRUPATI-517501

Chittoor District.

Rep. by its Manager.

 

3. Lava International Limited,

A-56, Sector-64,

Noida – 201301(UP)

Tel: 120 463 7100

Rep.by its Authorized Signatory.                                                   … Opposite parties

 

           This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 09.09.2016 and upon perusing the complaint, written arguments of the complainant and opposite party no.3 and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.M.Subramanyam, counsel for the complainant and Sri. A.Suresh, counsel for the opposite party no.3 and opposite parties 1 and 2 are remained exparte having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

          This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties for selling defective mobile phone and prayed this Forum to pass an order directing the opposite parties to replace the defective “ IRISALFA” with “ALFA L” mobile phone as agreed by the opposite party no. 3 or to refund the cost of the mobile and  also to pay  compensation Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and to pay Rs.1,500/- towards conveyance charges and to pay Rs.3,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

          2. The brief facts of the case are:  The complainant submits that she is studying B.E. (Bachelor of Engineering) in Saraswathi Viswa Maha Vidyalaya, Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu and she is the resident of Santhi Nagar, Khadi Colony, Tiruapati. The GPA holder R.V.Narayana Murthy her father represents the present case on behalf of her. The complainant purchased IRISALFA Mobile hand set from the opposite party no.1 shop on 18.04.2015 for Rs.6,200/- vide invoice no. S1/TPT2/378 with warranty of one year. The complainant further submits that, from the date of purchase the said mobile is not working properly with the problem of auto deleting contacts without operation. Hence she approached the opposite party no.2 an authorized service centre of the company at Tirupati on 29.06.2015 vide WO No.510004579170 and the same was repaired and returned on 30.06.2015 to the complainant by opposite party no.1. But the same complaint was repeated even after repairing the same hence again she approached the opposite party no.2 vide WO No.510005469732 and the opposite party has declared that the mobile set is having a manufacturing defect and hence they brought to the notice of the opposite party no.3 in the presence of the complainant. The opposite party no.3, who is the manufacturing company contacted the complainant (from mobile no.9885553230) and offered replacement of the “IRISALFA” new mobile in the place of defective one. But the complainant came to know that all the series of the said mobiles have got manufacturing defect and not functioning properly, hence he expressed the same with the opposite party no.3, and they offered replacement of “ALFA L” mobile set in the place of defective mobile “IRISALFA” for which the complainant has accepted through SMS from the mobile (9440270210) stating that “accepting for replacement of “ALFA L” in place of “IRISALFA” if the features are advanced or similar to the defective one with no additional cost and with a fresh warranty” for which the opposite party no.3 have confirmed “OK” through SMS (from mobile no.9885553230).

          3. The complainant submits that the opposite party no.3 informed the complainant over phone to hand over the old mobile set to opposite party no.2 and collect new     “ALFA L” from opposite party no.1 in the place of the old mobile “IRISALFA”. The complainant approached the opposite party no.2 and handed over the old mobile set and they gave a DOA certificate dt: 24.09.2015  and directed him to hand over the same to the opposite party no.1 and receive “ALFA L” mobile set, but the opposite party no.1 refused to give “ALFA L” but they offered only new “IRISALFA” mobile phone. Hence the opposite parties did not keep up their promise and violated the agreement of replacement of “ALFA L” in the place of “IRISALFA” and the opposite party no.2          misleaded the complainant by issuing a false DOA violating the agreement. Hence there is a clear deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties by selling the defective piece and caused in convenience by rendering the deficiency of service which causes mental agony to the complainant. Hence he caused a legal notice to the opposite parties on 12.10.2015 demanding to replace the “ALFA L” phone in the place of “IRISALFA” without additional charges with compensation. But the same was received by the opposite party but they failed to comply the same. Hence the complainant filed the present complaint before this Forum. 

         4. Both opposite parties 1 and 2 remained absent and set exparte.

          5. Opposite party no.3 appeared and filed the written version by denying the allegations made in the complaint and contended that the LAVA International Ltd., manufactures the best quality product and the product with manufacturing defect will not released in the market as they will release the products in the market after repeated trial checkups to their products with diligent care and caution. Hence despite of stringent quality control, sometimes it is possible in rare circumstances the defective piece will come out in the market. The opposite party further contended that the replacement will be available for the products of the same model with equal cost. As IRISALFA model is available in the market, and it has been agreed to replace the same to the complainant hence there is no deficiency of service on part of them and also the opposite party further contended that they have issued a DOA certificate to the complainant and it was clearly endorsed that the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the DOA certificate. In the DOA certificate it was clearly mentioned that if at all there is any objection she has to object the same at the time of taking the DOA certificate. Hence there is no deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties as they issued DOA as a good will gesture and also the complainant has no locus stand to represent the case without valid authorization from his daughter. Hence the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

           6. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex.A1to A8 were marked. On behalf of the opposite party one Amardeep Singh S/o. Lalla Singh service resident filed his evidence on affidavit and no documents were marked on behalf of opposite parties. Both complainant and opposite party no.3 filed the written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

         7.  Now the points for consideration are:

              (i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties    

                     towards the complainant?            

             (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? If so? To

                       what extent?           

             (iii)   To what Result?

           8. Point No:-(i). As per the contention of the complainant, from the date of purchase the said cell phone is not working properly hence he approached the opposite party no.2 an authorized service centre several times for getting it repaired. But they did not render the service properly by rectifying the defect and the same defect was repeated and finally the complainant placed a complaint on 24.02.2015 vide WO No. 510005469732 and the opposite party no.2 has declared that the mobile set has got a manufacturing defect and the said defect cannot be resolved at their service centre and they intimated the same to the opposite party no.3 in the presence of the complainant and confirmed the manufacture defect of the mobile set and sent the mobile phone to the opposite party no.3 and they offered replacement of “IRISALFA” mobile new piece in the place of old one.  The complainant came to know that all the series of “IRISALFA” mobile handsets have got manufacturing defect and has not functioning properly as mentioned in the manual and the same was expressed to the opposite party no.3 by telephonic message and same was accepted by opposite party no.3 and they offered replacement of “ALFA L” mobile set in the place of “IRISALFA” and same was confirmed as “OK” by opposite party no.3 through SMS.

          The complainant further submits that he approached the opposite party no.2 on            24.09.2015 and the opposite party no.2 gave a DOA certificate no.510005949116           dt: 24.09.2015 and as per the instructions of the opposite party no.2 they handed over the DOA letter to opposite party no.1 to receive new one “ALFA L” mobile set, but opposite party no.1 refused to give “ALFA L” mobile set and they offered only new “IRISALFA” mobile set and the complainant stated that the opposite parties did not keep their promise and violated the agreement of replacement of “ALFA L” in the place of “IRISALFA” which is nothing but deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties .

          But as per the contention of the opposite party no.3 they admitted the sale of mobile set i.e. “IRISALFA” to the complainant and also contended that after stringent measures taken by them to maintain the quality of their products it may be possible sometimes a defective piece will come out in the market in rare cases and also admitted that they can replace the product which is of same model is of same price purchased by the customers  and also they offered the same to the complainant and hence there is no deficiency of service on their part because they have responded to the complainant  in time and taken measures to resolve the complaint of the complainant.

          The opposite party no. 3 further stated that it was clearly mentioned in the DOA certificate that they will replace the mobile of same model and the complainant has endorsed his signature after gone through all the conditions mentioned in the DOA certificate and also contended that as a GPA holder he cannot not file the case without any valid authorization. Once the complainant accepted the conditions, he cannot go back and insists them for the different model of the phone.

         The complainant filed Ex.A8 to prove that as she appointed her father as a G.P.A holder to represent her case. There is no dispute regarding the manufacturing defect in the mobile phone which was purchased by the complainant because same was admitted by opposite party no.3. As per the contention of the complainant the opposite party no.3 refused to replace the “ALFA L” model phone in place of “IRISALFA” mobile phone as accepted in the SMS. But the opposite party stated that it is not possible for them to replace the different model of mobile phone as  they can replace the same model which is not accepted by the complainant. But as per Ex:A5 in the SMS they accepted the request of the complainant that they will replace the “ALFA L” mobile phone and same was not denied by the opposite party no.3 anywhere in the written version and also in evidence on affidavit which is nothing but creating hope to the complainant in order to cover their latches which is nothing but unfair trade practice  and deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties. Hence this point is answered against the opposite parties.

          9. Point(ii):- There is no dispute regarding the mobile phone purchased by the complainant is defective in nature, same was admitted by the opposite party no.3. The complainant has not enjoyed the benefit of the mobile phone from the day one of the purchase as it is defective in nature and also the opposite parties failed to take the steps to satisfy their customer and they offered for replacement of the mobile of same model which is of failure model is of no use for the complainant.

         In view of our finding above the complainant is entitled for the refund of price of the cell phone of Rs.6,200/- (rupees six thousand two hundreds only) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of realization and for Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and for mental agony and deficiency in service suffered by the complainant and also Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

         10.Point (iii):-    In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally  to refund the cost of the mobile of  Rs.6,200/- (rupees six thousand two hundred only) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization. The opposite party further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousands only)  towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency of service and to pay Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The opposite party further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which the compensation amount of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) shall also carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.   

           Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 29^th day of September, 2016.

 

          Sd/-                                                                                                           Sd/-                                                                                                     

  Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: R.V. Narayana Murthy (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Party/s.

 

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of Invoice of the Mobile Set IRISALFA Issued by the Opposite Party No.1. Dt: 18.04.2015.
	Photo copy of list of work order receipts in 2 issued by Opposite Party No.2.  Dt: 01.07.2015 and 24.08.2015.
	Photo copy of DOA Certificate (No: 510005949116) issued by Opposite Party No.2. Dt: 24.09.2015.
	Office copy of Legal Notice issued by Complainant to all the Opposite Parties. Dt: 12.10.2015.
	Photo copy of Correspondence made by the complainant with the Opposite Parties through Mobile-Extract.
	Acknowledgement of the Opposite Party No.1. Dt: 12.10.2015.
	Service of the Notices to Opposite Party No.2 and 3, Certificate issued by the Deputy Post Master (HSG-I) of Post Offices, Tirupati H.O. (True Copy).
	General Power of Attorney executed by the complainant in favour of her father R.V. Narayana Murthy (Original).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

                                                                      -NIL-

 

                                                                                                               Sd/-

      President

 

 

                                                              // TRUE COPY //

                                                               // BY ORDER //

 

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                                  Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati

 

 

Copies to:  The Complainant.

                  The Opposite parties.