Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/457/2017

Ms. Rajeswari D/o Late Mr. R.Chandramouli - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Poorvika Mobiles Pvt &. Ltd. & Others - Opp.Party(s)

M/s N Srinivasulu

29 Aug 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 29.11.2017

Date of Reservation      : 27.08.2022

Date of Order               : 29.08.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                            : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 457 /2017

MONDAY, THE 29^th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

Ms. Raajeswari,

D/o Late Mr.R.Chandramouli,

No. 1, 3^rd Floor, 2^nd Main Road,

R.K.Nagar, Mandaveli,

Chennai-600 028.                                                        …Complainant

 

-Vs-

1. M/s. POORVIKA MOBILES PVT LTD,

    Rep. by its Managing Director’

    Regd. Office No.30, Arcot Road,

    Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024.

 

2. The Managing Director,

    M/s. POORVIKA MOBILES PVTLTD,

    Regd. Office No.30, Arcot Road,

    Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024.

 

3. The Chief Executive Officer,

    M/s. POORVIKA MOBILES PVT LTD,

    Regd. Office No.30, Arcot Road,

    Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024.

 

4. Mr.R.Venkatesan,

    Sales person,

    M/s. POORVIKA MOBILES PVT LTD,

    No.240, New No.72, R.K.Mutt Road,

    (near A2B and Mylapore Tank),

    Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.                                  ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

 

Counsel for the Complainant            : M/s. N.Srinivasulu

Counsel for the Opposite Parties       : Exparte

 

        On perusal of records this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to provide replacement of new Mobile-Phone in connection with the Redmi 4 32GB Gold:xiaomi M Mobile (866459031548903) and direct the Opposite Parties to pay  Rs.1,00,000/- being the compensation as individually, jointly and severally for deficiency of service, delivery of defective Mobile-Phone, mental agony along with cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

       The Complainant  had purchased a mobile-phone on 21.09.2017 branded as Redmi 4 32GB Gold:Xiaomi: M Mobile (866459031548903) for Rs.10,349/- vide Serial No. of Invoice: GST/2MYL/4539, at Mylapore Branch from the 4^th Opposite Party, who is working as Salesperson at Mylapore Branch, Chennai of the 1^st Opposite Party. Immediately after purchase of 1½ Hours the mobile-phone didn't work and not even it get started and the same was brought to the knowledge of the 4^th Opposite Party forthwith. The 4^th Opposite Party deputed one Mr.Vigneshwaran who has collected mobile-phone from the Complainant at 06.45 pm on the very same day, i.e., on 21.09.2017 for doing repair of the said mobile-phone. Later the mobile-phone has been handed over to the Complainant on the same day i.e., on 21.09.2017 at 09.45 PM as if the problem in the mobile has been rectified as it was software problem and got an endorsement of acknowledgement from Complainant such as "Received back the mobile phone after software updation". After handing over the mobile, the concern person who handed over the mobile-phone has inserted the Complainant's SIM (Cell No.80560 74463) into the mobile and left from the place. Later when the mobile-phone was switched ON, but to the Complainant's dismay, the mobile-phone didn't get ON and nothing has been displayed in the display screen of the mobile-phone. Even the SIM inserted into the mobile-phone couldn't get back to use it in another mobile-phone; hence the Complainant was put into untold hardship. she has informed to the 4^th Opposite Party and as well as the Manager of the Mylapore Branch Retail Shop of the 1^st Opposite Party, but they he didn't answer properly and asked the Complainant to come later. As the Complainant is working as a whole time Director in a Company, she couldn't talk to her customers, friends, relatives and as well as the day today affairs of the job allotted to her by her company because of the SIM locked in the mobile-phone. Therefore the Complainant unable to discharge her duties and as well as her personal work due to the SIM got locked into the mobile-phone and consequently her relatives, friends, and customers also put into inconvenient since they could not contact for several days. The Complainant has been asked to come on various dates for the replacement of the mobile-phone and accordingly the Complainant has visited the 4^th  Opposite Party for the replacement of the mobile-phone apart from sending her staff to Mylapore shop but everything met in vain as the 4^th  Opposite Party didn't attend the Complainant for the replacement of mobile-phone and ultimately directed the Complainant on 11.10.2017 to approach service centre. When Complainant didn't use the newly purchased mobile-phone, how it is justifiable to go to service centre as held by the 4^th Opposite Party.  The 4^th Opposite Party has delivered defective old mobile-phone as if the mobile-phone delivered to the Complainant was branded new one. Though the Complainant approached the 4^th Opposite Party, proper service has not been extended to the Complainant and hence there was defective service and as well as defective mobile-phone has been delivered to the Complainant, for which all the Opposite Parties are liable to be compensated to the complaint apart from replacement of new mobile-phone. She has issued lawyers notice to the all the Opposite Parties on 13.10.2017 and all the Opposite Parties have received the notices and deliberately failed to provide replacement of new mobile to the Complainant. Further the Opposite Parties didn't send any reply to the Complainant's legal notice till the filing of this complaint. Hence it seems that they have accepted their guilty in rendering deficiency of services apart from supplying defective mobile to the Complainant. Hence the complaint.

3.    The Complainant submitted her Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7 were marked. Oral arguments of the Complainant was closed.

4.   The Opposite Parties 1 to 4 did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice served on them, hence Opposite Parties 1 to 4 were set exparte.

Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

        It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had purchased Redmi 4 32GB Gold:Xiaomi: M Mobile on 21.09.2017 under Invoice No.GSI/2MYL/4539, from the 1^st Opposite Party’s branch at Mylapore, being the 4^th Opposite Party.

        The disputed fact is that the said Mobile Phone was not turned on, immediately after purchase and the 4^th Opposite Party through his employee received the said Mobile Phone for repair on the same day at 6.45 pm and returned back the said Mobile as it was repaired and inserted the SIM Card of the Complainant. Even there after the said Mobile Phone did not turned on/get started and even the SIM Card of the Complainant got blocked, of which she could not make calls to her customers, friends and relations. Inspite of her constant approach with the 4^th Opposite Party, there was no proper response and her claim of replacement of said Mobile Phone made to the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 went in vain.

        On perusal of the complaint and Exhibits marked in support of the complaint, it is clear from Ex.A-1 the Complainant had purchased the subject Mobile Phone from the 4^th Opposite Party, being the branch of the 1^st Opposite Party. And from the endorsement found in the back side of Page No.3 in Ex.A1, it is clear that the subject Mobile Phone was collected for carrying out the repair by the employee of the 4^th Opposite Party. From the averments of the complaint, it is clear that the Complainant from the date of purchase, the Complainant was constantly approaching the 4^th Opposite Party, who had failed to rectify the issues of the Complainant’s Mobile, instead directed to approach the Service Centre on 11.10.2017. Having waited patiently for long time, the act of the 4^th Opposite Party constrained the Complainant to issue a legal notice dated 13.10.2017 to the Opposite Parties 1 to 4, inspite of receipt of the said legal notice, as found in Exs.A-2 to Ex.A-6 respectively, there was no response from the Opposite Parties 1 to 4. Hence, we hold that the 1^st to 4^th Opposite Parties had failed and neglected to rectify the issues of the Complainant’s Mobile nor replaced  the same. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 had committed deficiency of service and thereby had caused mental agony to the Complainant. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

 

Point Nos. 2 and 3:-

        As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Opposite Parties 1 to 4, the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to replace new Mobile-Phone in connection with the Redmi 4 32GB Gold:Xiaomi: M Mobile (866459034518903) and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service along with cost of Rs.3,000/- and the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 to 4 are directed for replacement of new Mobile-Phone in connection with the Redmi 4 32GB Gold:Xiaomi: M Mobile (866459034518903) and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Fie Thousand Only) as compensation for deficiency in service along with cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only)  to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of this order till the date of realisation.

           In the result this complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 29^th day of August 2022. 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	21.09.2017	Invoice cum delivery challan with endorsement
Ex.A2	13.10.2017	Legal Notice sent to the Opposite Parties by the complaint's counsel
Ex.A3	14.10.2017	Proof of delivery from India Post in respect of 5th  Respondent along with postal slip
Ex.A4	16.10.2017	Proof of delivery from India Post in respect of 1st  Respondent along with postal slip
Ex.A5	16.10.2017	Proof of delivery from India Post in respect of 2nd Respondent along with postal slip
Ex.A6	16.10.2017	Proof of delivery from India Post in respect of 3rd  Respondent along with postal slip
Ex.A7	16.10.2017	Proof of delivery from India Post in respect of 4th Respondent along with Postal slip

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT