D.o.F:27/8/2011
D.o.O:06/2/2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.219/11
Dated this, the 06th day of February 2012
PRESENT:
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Abdulla Ameer.Y.M,
S/o Y.Mohammed Kunhi,
R/at Rehmath Manzil, Edirthodu, Po.Edneer,Kasaragod. : Complainant
(in person)
1. M/s Mobile Villa, Shop No.105,
Gulf Bazar, Near New Busstand,Kasaragod.
2. Onida Service Centre(Speed care) Ist floor, : Opposite parties
Kaban Shopping Arcade, Anebagilu,Kasaragod
(in person)
ORDER
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is as follows:
On 3/6/11 complainant purchased an Onida G -585 phone from Ist opposite party. Since the battery of the phone was not having charge next day he changed the battery. On switching on the display was there. On 6/6/11 he returned the mobile to Ist opposite party and the opposite party asked him to adjust somehow and told that it will be replaced soon. On 17/6/11 he approached to Ist opposite party. Then Ist opposite party entrusted the mobile with the 2nd opposite party who is the service centre of Onida mobiles. 2nd opposite party asked him to come after couple of days but there was no positive reply from them and it was neither repaired nor replaced it. Therefore he caused a notice by registered post to the opposite parties on 11/8/ 11. But both opposite parties were not responded. Therefore the complaint claiming the compensation for `10000/- with the replacement of the mobile.
2. Notices issued to the opposite parties,OP.2 filed version. OP.1 neither appeared nor filed version. According to 2nd opposite party the complainant came to their office of with a physically damaged mobile set and its display was in broken condition. At that time it was told him that the above defect is out of warranty condition and the replacement of the parts are chargeable because of physical damage was caused due to the misuse of mobile phone. It was also informed the complainant that, for the replacement of the spare parts more than 15 days are required since the spare parts has to be brought from their head office and they have no practice of stocking its spare parts. Thereafter they received spare parts from head office through their branch office on 27/8 11 . On the same day it was informed the complainant but the complainant told that since the matter is before the court let the court settle the issue. The delay in obtaining the spare parts is not due to the negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The case is bad for misjoinder of necessary party also since the spare parts were arranged by their head office Bombay and they are not party to the complaint.
3. The complainant examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 marked. On the side of 2nd opposite party witness present who is examined as DW1 and Ext.B1 is marked. Both sides heard and documents perused.
4. Complainant as PW1 deposed that he approached the 1st opposite party for curing the defects of display and sound of the mobile phone and the Ist opposite party asked him to come after 3 days. On 3rd day when he approached the Ist opposite party they contacted the 2nd opposite party and 2nd opposite party informed that they will replace the mobile set. But they have no stock at that time so they asked him to wait till the new stock is reached. But they told that when the stock is available it will be replaced . Thereafter he used the mobile phone with the aid of ear phone and there was no defects. Subsequently when he was alighting from a car the mobile phone fall down and the screen was broken. He informed this to the 2nd opposite party and told that it need not be replaced and the broken screen is to be replaced and the cost of the same shall be brought by the Ist opposite party. The 2nd opposite party told that they will call him when the parts are received and therefore the mobile phone was returned to him till date they have not called him therefore he caused the Ext A2 lawyer notice. Ext.A1 is the purchase bill of the mobile phone.
5. In cross examination PW1 deposed that opposite party told that the defect occurred is out of warranty and the repair charges are to be borne by complainant himself and he is agreed to pay the amount. He further deposed that he did not know the terms and conditions of the service centre The 2nd opposite party has not told him directly that the mobile phone will be replaced and it was told through opposite party No.1. When he approached the 2nd opposite party initially, display of mobile phone was in broken condition and it was also told that the spare parts of the mobile phone was not in their stock. He also admitted that on 27/8/11 2nd opposite party called him and told that spare parts are received by them. But at that time the complainant told that let the matter will be decided by the Court. He further deposed that 2nd opposite party told that they will replace the mobile phone of the same brand. But he wanted the refund of the money not replacement of the phone.
6. On behalf of 2nd opposite party DW1 was examined. He deposed that complainant brought the mobile on 13/7/11 with display broken condition. And it was told that the spare parts are not available and since the defects is out of warranty the service is chargable. So the complainant agreed for the same and asked to order for the spare parts. The complainant was asked to follow up after 15 days. But when the complainant called after 15 days the spare parts were not reached. Thereafter complainant caused lawyer notice and on 27/8/11 when the spare parts were reached he immediately contacted the complainant and they were ready to repair the mobile set and replace the same but the complainant was not willing to accept their offer. DW1 also deposed that as per the terms and conditions of their service centre they are not liable for the delay caused in getting the spare parts from their company. Ext.B1 is the delivery chalan/stock transfer note issued from Adonis Electronics Pvt Ltd to the 2nd OP as per that 1 Onida 585 G LCD O/W has been sent on 24/8/11 to 2nd opposite party .
From the evidence adduced above it is clear that the display of the mobile phone of the complainant was broken by the act of complainant himself and the opposite party on instruction by the complainant ordered for the spare parts but it was received by them only 27/8/11. So no negligence or deficiency in service can be attributed on the side of the opposite parties. The delay if any caused in getting the spare parts was not due to any willful negligence or deficiency in service on their part. Therefore the complaint fails and it is dismissed. However if the complainant wants to repair the mobile phone by replacing the spare parts then it can be done by opposite party on receipt of proper service charges. No order as to costs.
Exts:
A1- purchase bill
A2-lawyer notice.
A3&A4- Postal acknowledgment cards
B1- Delivery note
PW1-Abdul Ameer Y.M-complainant
DW1-Viswanadhan.M OP.NO.2
MEMBER . MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva
