Complaint filed on 18.06.2014

                                                                                                                      Compliant disposed on 31.10.2014 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM :AT:: KARIMNAGAR, TELANGANA STATE

PRESENT: HON'BLE SRI B.SURESH, B.A., LL.M., Ist ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRESIDENT (FAC) AND

SRI G.SREENIVASRAO, M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B., PGADR (NALSAR), MEMBER

FRIDAY, THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN

CONSUMER COMPLAINT  NO. 105 OF 2014

Between:-

Sriram Vanisri W/o. Sheshagiri, Age 43 years, R/o. H.No.5-7-132/1, APHB Colony, Karimnagar – 505 001.

                                             ... Complainant (P in P) 

                                          AND

M/s. LOT MOBILES Pvt. Ltd R/by its’ Proprietor, 7-4-422, Kashmeer Gadda, Opp: II Town Police Station, Karimnagar.

                                                                                                                                                 … Opposite Party

          This complaint is coming up before us for hearing on  15-10-2014, in the presence of complainant, and the opposite party remained exparte and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:

::ORDER::

1.       This complaint is filed under sec 12 of CP Act to direct the opposite party either to replace with a new Mobile or refund Rs.4,200/- along with interest @ 12% PA and to pay compensation plus costs of Rs.1,000/-.

2.       The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased a Mobile of the make “A9+ Celkon Mobile” from the shop of the opposite party on 27.07.2013 for a sum of Rs.4,200/-, the said Mobile failed to work properly within a week of purchase. It was brought to the notice of the opposite party for rectifying the defect or replacement with a new Mobile, the opposite party did not heed to the complaints, as such the complainant lodged a complaint with the Karimnagar Consumer Council, who sent a notice to the opposite party on 12.03.2014 through registered post. Even then, the opposite party ignored the complaint. Hence the case is before the Forum for redressal.    

3.       The opposite party has been served notice but he did not contest the case. Hence, the Forum set him exparte.

4.       The complainant filed evidence and got marked the documents from Ex.A1 to A3. The counsel argued the case. Heard the counsel.

5.       Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the unfair/deceptive practice, if so, to what relief?

6.       POINT:

The complainant did purchase a Mobile from the opposite party show room on 27.07.2013 and within a week, it started troubling & dysfunctional. Even after reporting the same to the opposite party on several occasions, the opposite parties did not respond despite being a reputed show room in the Karimnagar town. All the exhibits are primafacie.

7.       In the general parlance any product sold in the market by a Pvt. Ltd Company, the customer/consumer blindly buys it with a belief that the purchased product has a particular standard, quality, carrying warranty or guarantee of the performance with considerable length of life of a product.

8.       The opposite party in the instant case has totally failed to adhere to the norms of credible business as such indulged in deceptive practice by not attending to the genuine complaints, but misleading the customer/consumer with false promises. In addition, even after receiving the notice from Consumer Council, he is found to be uncareful & unreasonable to his customer. So the contention of the complainant is proved and he deserves compensation also.

9.       In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to replace the “A9+ Celkon Mobile” with a new one equivalent to Rs.4,200/- and pay a compensation of Rs.3,000/- for mental agony and hardship caused with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Time for compliance is 30 days.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer and after correction, the orders pronounced by us in the open court this the 31^st day of October, 2014.

Sd/-                                                                                                                                 Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                                PRESIDENT (FAC)

NO ORAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE

FOR COMPLAINANT:                       

1. Ex.A1 is the original copy of Notice issued to opposite party Dt: 12.03.2014.
2. Ex.A2 is the copy of Postal Receipt Dt: 12.03.2014.
3. Ex.A3 is the original copy of Cash Bill issued by opposite party Dt: 27.07.2013.
4. The Mobile submitted by complainant is marked as MO1.

FOR OPPOSITE PARTY: -NIL-

Sd/-                                                                                                            Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                        PRESIDENT(FAC)