Date of filing:22.6.2013.
Date of dispsal:5.9.2013.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER.
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE 5th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013
C.C.No.111 of 2013
Between:
Kota Srikanth, S/o K.V.G.Satyanarayana, Plot No.422, D.No.54-14-3/44, Road No.7, Srinivasa Nagar Colony, Vijayawada – 8.
….… Complainant.
AND
- M/s Micro Max Service Center, Rep., by its Center Head, D.No.28-26-21, Moulana Street, Arandelpet, Vijayawada.
- M/s Univercell, Eluru Road, Rep., by its Sales Manager, Eluru Road, Mysoorcafe Center, Vijayawada.
.… Opposite Parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 4.9.2013 in the presence of complainant appearing in person and opposite parties remaining absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S.Sreeram)
This complaint is filed by the complainant in person under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 directing the opposite parties to pay the cost of phone i.e. Rs.6,295/- with interest and also grant Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony.
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant purchased the Micro Max A45 (Punk) Model cell phone from 2nd opposite party for Rs.6,295/- on 29.7.2012 and the same was covered warranty period of one year. It is further submitted that the said cell phone was not being functioned within one month and when the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and on their instructions, the complainant gave the said cell phone to the authorized service center of opposite parties for repairs and the service center people after one month returned the said phone by stating that the defect was repair. The complainant further submitted that the complainant gave the cell phone thereafter to the authorized service center for repair and they handed over the same by stating that they have rectified the mistake. Finally on 12.4.2013 the complainant handed over the phone to Service center and as they did not return the same, on 3.6.2013 the complainant sent notices to service center and the 2nd opposite party. On that the service center people have handed over the phone on 15.6.2013 by stating that the defect was repaired. But the said phone was not functioned properly. Hence the complainant is constrained to file the present complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties, but they did not turn up and remained absent.
3. The complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. None is examined on behalf of opposite parties as they remained absent
4. Heard complainant and perused the record.
5. Now the point that arises for consideration in this complaint are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in not rectifying the defect of complainant?
- If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
POINT NO.1 :
6. On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavit and documents), there is no dispute with regard to the purchase of Micro Max A45 (Punk) model cell phone from the 2nd opposite party by complainant on 29.07.2012 vide Ex.A1 cash memo. It is not in dispute that the said cell phone was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The main grievance of the complainant is that within one month from the date of purchase of cell phone, it developed repairs and he approached the 2nd opposite party for repairs as it is within warranty period and on the direction of the 2nd opposite party, he approached the authorized service center for repairs and after one month, they returned the cell phone. But the defect was not rectified. Thereafter also the complainant handed over the cell phone twice to authorized service center, but of no use. Finally as the service center people not returned the cell phone which was given for repair, the complainant got issued a notice dt.3.6.2013 under Ex.A2 to the service center and the 2nd opposite party under Ex.A3 postal receipts. After receipt of notices, the service center people returned the phone, but there is no improvement in the condition of phone.
7. A perusal of record discloses that, though the opposite parties 1 and 2 received the notices in the present complaint failed to make their appearance. Therefore, the claim of the complainant is deemed to be admitted by the opposite parties 1 and 2. Exs.A1 to A3 remained unquestioned and unchallenged. Accordingly the complainant proved his case. As per the complainant, though he several times gave the cell phone to service center people, the problem was not rectified. As such, it is clear that the cell phone has got manufacturing defect, which was not even rectified by the service center. Hence, the 1st opposite party being the manufacturer and the 2nd opposite party being dealer are liable to make good the loss caused to complainant apart from compensation for mental agony and costs.
8. According to Section 2(1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act any fault or imperfection or short coming in its quality, potency, performance or standard which is required to be maintained by under any Law for the time being in force or as is claimed by a trader in any manner whatever in relation to any goods comes within the mischief of defective goods. As per Section 14(1)(a) & (b) the buyer is entitled to remedy by way of either removal of defect or by way of replacing the goods with similar description or by way of return of the price or charges paid by the consumer.
9. A perusal of record discloses that, the complainant has not filed any job sheets evidencing the handing over of cell phone to service center except for stating in Ex.A2 notice. But, as stated above, as the opposite parties failed to make their appearance, the averments of complaint are remained unchallenged. The defective cell phone is with the complainant. With regard to the amount claimed by complainant, as seen from complaint, the complainant claimed Rs.6,295/-. But Ex.A1 cash bill discloses that the cost of cell phone is Rs.4,761-90 ps and it further discloses that the cost of blue tooth and memory card is Rs.1,047/- and Rs.285.70 ps and other accessories, which total comes to Rs.6,295/-. But as per complainant, the problem is with the cell phone only, but not with other accessories. Hence, the complainant is entitled to Rs.4,761.90 ps only.
POINT No.2:-
10. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.4,762/- (Four thousand seven hundred and sixty two rupees only) to the complainant and also to pay Rs.1,000/- (One thousand rupees only) towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.500/- (Five hundred rupees only) towards costs of the complaint. The other claims of complainant are hereby dismissed. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order. The complainant shall hand over the cell phone to opposite parties 1 and 2 under proper acknowledgment as and when they approach the complainant and express that they are ready to pay the amounts mentioned supra.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 5th day of September, 2013.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 Kota Srikanth, None
Complainant
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A.1 29.07.2012 Photocopy of Tax Invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A.2 03.06.2013 Photocopy of Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite
parties.
Ex.A.3 04.06.2013 Two postal receipts.
For the opposite parties:
Nil.
PRESIDENT
