Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

cc 34/2012

Mailapalli Srinivas - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S MEMMO GLOBAL TELE COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

K. Vinod Kumar

20 May 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:06-02-2012 

                                                                                                Date of Order:20-05-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                                VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

                                3. Sri C.V. Rao, M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                          Wednesday, the 20^th day of May, 2015.

                             CONSUMER CASE No.34/2012

Between:-

MAILAPALLI SRINIVAS,

S/o (late) Ramulu, Business, aged about

35 years, Flat No.201, Kakathiya Towers,

D. No. 9-13-100, New Resapuvanipalem,

Opp: Swarna Bharathi Stadium,

VISAKHAPATNAM-5300013.

                                                                                                     ….. Complainant

And:-

1.M/s. MEMMO GLOBAL TELE COMMUNICATIONS

   PVT. LTD., represented by its Managing Director,

   D. No. 47-13-10, Dwaraka Nagar,

   Visakhapatnam-16.

2.M/s ARUN CELL CARE.

   Authorised Service Centre for Micromax Mobiles,

   represented by its Proprietor, GF-2, Roshini Palace,

   D. No. 47-3-7, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam-16.

3.M/s MICROMAX HOUSE, represented by its

   Managing Director, Head Office: D. No. 697,

   Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, GURGAON, Haryana.

                                                                                     …  Opposite Parties

                     

This case coming on 15.05.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri K. Vinod Kumar & Y.T.R. Rao, Advocates for the Complainant and Sri N. Shiva Raja Kumar, Advocate for the 1^st Opposite Party and the 2^nd Opposite Party being 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 had purchased a Micromax Mobile phone of Q-80 for an amount of Rs.4,925/- bearing No. I.M.E.I. Nos. 911110000023031 and 911110000176037 on 29.07.2011 from the 1^st Opposite Party dealer of the said mobile phone.   After purchase of six days the mobile handset is not worked properly i.e., voice of either parties incoming and outgoing calls was not hearing.   On the same day i.e., 05.08.2011 the Complainant visited the 2^nd Opposite Party who is the service centre of the said mobile phone and handed over his mobile handset and submitted required documents.   The service centre people requested the Complainant to come after 2 days and issued a Customer Job Card bearing No.2237918, after lapse of 2 days the Complainant visited to the 2^nd Opposite Party and requested them to return his mobile handset.   But the 2^nd Opposite Party did not give mobile phone to the Complainant and requested some more time to rectify the same.   Inspite of many requests made by the Complainant, the 2^nd Opposite Party did not rectify the mobile phone.  The Complainant issued a legal notice dated 13.09.2011 to the Opposite Parties 1 to 3.   The 1^st Opposite Party issued a reply lawyer’s notice dated 19.10.2011.   Hence, this complaint.

2.       a) Replace the defective Mobile Phone with a new Mobile phone; (or)

          b) Refund the cost of the Mobile Phone Rs.4,925/- along with 24% interest;

          c) Pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the physical strain and mental agony suffered by the Complainant and his family members; and

          d) Pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation;

          e) Pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of this Petition;

          f) Grant such other reliefs in this Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

 

3.       The 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties did not appear before this Forum as they were set exparte and remained exparte.

 

          The 1^st Opposite Party strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from its counter.   The 1^st Opposite Party denied all the allegations made by the Complainant and stated that they are only seller of the said mobile phone.   The Complainant filed this complaint with a view to have a wrongful gain to himself and to cause wrongful loss to the 1^st Opposite Party.   So, they have liability to pay any reliefs asked by the Complainant.

4.       At the time of enquiry, the Complainant called absent, no representation.   So, treated as no affidavit and written arguments for the Complainant.   Inspite of many adjournments given to the Complainant to file affidavit as well as written arguments but the Complainant failed.   The 1^st Opposite Party filed its affidavit as well as written arguments to support his contentions.   Exs.A1 to A7 are suo-moto marked for the Complainant.  No documents were marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties.   Heard the 1^st Opposite Party.

 

5.       Ex.A1 is the Memmo Global Tele Communications Cash Bill dated 29.07.2011.   Ex.A2 is the Customer Job Card dated 5.8.2011.   Ex.A3 is the legal notice issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties dated 13.9.2011.   Ex.A4, Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 are the acknowledgments Cards.   Ex.A7 is the reply legal notice issued by the 1^st Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant dated 19.10.2011.  

 

6.       The fact shown from Ex.A2 reveals that the Complainant purchased the mobile phone on 29.07.2011 and it was handed over to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 5.8.2011 for rectification of its defect.  In the Customer Job Card handset mode complaint only was noted by the technician of the 2^nd Opposite Party.   Ex.A7 reveals that the 1^st Opposite Party gave a reply legal notice to the Complainant stating that he is only seller of the said mobile phone, so he has no liable to pay any reliefs asked by the Complainant.

 

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

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.   Whether the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

 

8.         After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the  Complainant purchased the mobile phone on 29.07.2011 from the 1^st Opposite Party by paying Rs.4,925/-.   After six days of its purchase the Complainant faced many problems with the said mobile phone.   Inspite of many representations and personal requests made by the Complainant, the 2^nd Opposite Party who is the service centre of the said mobile phone did not rectify the defects in the said mobile phone.   According to Ex.A2 the problem was noted in the job card as handset mode complaint dated 5.8.201.   But the 2^nd Opposite Party did not rectify the said mobile phone, inspite of several requests made by the Complainant.   Though the mobile phone has got 12 months warranty and gave troubles within six days of its purchase but it was not rectified by the Opposite Parties.   As such, the Complainant suffered a lot of mental agony by the acts of the Opposite Parties.   Now a days, the mobile phones are very essential to people.   The Complainant’s wish of having mobile phone and contact with others with the mobile handset is defeated by the acts of the Opposite Parties.   Though the mobile phone has 12 months warranty but gave troubles within a week of its purchase.    The Opposite Parties simply kept the mobile phone for many days, but they did not rectify the problem of the mobile phone, inspite of several months.   It amounts to deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.   Though the 1^st Opposite Party is only a seller but it is the duty of the seller to sold good condition goods only.   In the present case, we are of the opinion, that the 1^st Opposite Party sold the defective mobile phone knowingly.   So, he is also jointly and severally liable to pay.  Hence, the Complainant is entitled to cost of mobile phone with interest, some compensation and costs too.  

 

9.       In the result, this Complaint is allowed directing the Opposite Parties  1 to 3: a) to pay an amount of Rs.4,925/- (Rupees Four thousand, Nine hundred and twenty five only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from 5.8.2011 till the date of actual realization, b) a compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) and c) Costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the Complainant.    Time for compliance, one month from the date of this order.

 

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this 20^th day of May, 2015.       

             

Sd/-                                      Sd/-                                      Sd/-               

President                              Male Member                      Lady Member

                                     

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	29.07.2011	Cash Bill issued by the 1st Opposite Party for Rs.4,925/-in favour of the Complainant	Original
Ex.A02	05.08.2011	Customer Job Card issued by the 2nd OP	Original
Ex.A03	13.09.2011	Legal notice issued by the Complainant to Ops	Office copy
Ex.A04	21.09.2011	Acknowledgment of 2nd OP	Original
Ex.A05	24.09.2011	Acknowledgement of 1st OP	Original
Ex.A06	24.09.2011	Acknowledgment of 3rd OP	Original
Ex.A07	19.10.2011	Reply Lawyer’s Notice issued by the 1st OP to Complainant’s counsel	Office copy

For the Opposite Parties:-            

                  

                                                -Nil-  

 

  Sd/-                               Sd/-                                               Sd/-

President                          Male Member                                Lady Member