BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.693 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.1082 OF 2007 DISTRICT FORUM –II HYDERABAD
Between:
S.Vijay Kumar S/o late S.Appa Rao
aged about 57 yrs, Occ: Private Service
Flat No.304, Pattabhi Towers, RTC X Road
Hyderabad-020
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. M/s Reliance Communication
rep. by Mr.Anil Ambani Dirubai Ambani
Knowledge City Thane – Belapur Road
Navi Mumbai-709
2. M/s Mahavir Sales
rep. by Mr.Sharaven, 1-B,
Shilpi Apartments, Konark Theatre Lane
Dilsukhnagar Hyderabad-060
3. M/s Adones Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
(Authorized Service Centre of ZTA Corp.)
rep. by its In-charge D.No.5-9-77,
Near Stanley Girls, High School Chappel Road
Hydreabad-001
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellants Sri S.Srikant
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Sri M.Srinivas
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 Party in person
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 Sri Ashish Kale
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum which had directed for replacement of Reliance Handset with a new one, the complainant has come in appeal contending that the District Forum had not granted compensation for the mental agony suffered by the appellant and on account of deficiency of service rendered by the opposite parties.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant purchased Classic 261 Reliance Mobile Phone from the respondent no.2 on 15.8.2007 for a sum of `2,099/- for which warranty for a period of one year was issued by the respondent no.2. The appellant has got issued notice on 3.10.2007 stating that the mobile phone is defective and could not be used by him.
3. The respondents No.1 and 2 resisted the claim on the premise that the appellant was required to proceed under clause No.6 of the warrant before invoking the warranty and he has not fulfilled his part of obligation by handing over the piece to the authorized service centre and by delivering the DOA letter to the authorized dealer. The appellant has spoken to the executives of the respondents who informed him that he has to approach the respondent no.3 to obtain DOA letter and furnish the same to them.
4. The respondent no.3 was set exparte.
5. The appellant filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A6.
6. The District Forum has allowed the complaint opining that the mobile handset purchased by the appellant is defective.
7. The point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to any amount towards compensation?
8. The appellant purchasing Classic 261 handset from the respondent no.2 and the mobile ceasing to function on account of defect in it is not disputed. The finding of the District Forum that the mobile phone purchased by the appellant is defective is not challenged by the respondents and thereby the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents as recorded by the District Forum in its finding has become final.
9. During pendency of the complaint that appellant has deposited the mobile hand set before the District Forum. The District Forum has directed the respondents to replace the handset with a new one which according to the respondents could not be complied with on account of the appellant not coming forward to return the mobile handset to them. A perusal of the memo filed by the appellant before the District Forum stating that the mobile handset was being deposited by him shows that no notice was issued to the respondents before the appellant depositing the handset before the District Forum. However, the non-issuance of notice by itself is not a ground for the respondents to comply with the direction of the District Forum. The appellant filing appeal before this commission is sufficient notice for the respondents to comply with the order of the District Forum.
10. The appellant has purchased the mobile handset on 15.8.2007 and ever since he has been deprived of its use on account of it requiring repairs and in view of his depositing the mobile phone before the District Forum for the District Forum to come to a proper conclusion as to the condition of the mobile phone and the lesser scope of it getting repaired owing to the non-availability of spare parts. The appellant having purchased the mobile phone with the ambition of using it to his liking had been deprived of the advantage of usage of the mobile phone for a period of two years. He might have purchased another mobile phone. However, his investing a sum of Rs.2,000/- on the mobile phone two years ago cannot be a factor for come to the conclusion that he had not suffered any mental tension on account of the mobile piece developing repairs. Taking into consideration of various factors such as the duration of period the appellant had suffered mental tension on account of the mobile phone purchased by him two years ago from the respondent requiring repairs and becoming defunct, the amount that the appellant had incurred for filing for the complaint as also the appeal, we are of the opinion that a sum of `2000/- towards compensation would be proper and reasonable.
11. In the result the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is modified. The respondents are directed to replace the handset, Classic 261 Reliance Mobile with a new handset or refund the cost of the handset i.e., `2000/- and pay `2,000/- towards compensation to the appellant. The respondents are at liberty to receive the handset deposited with the District Forum. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
10.11.2011
KMK*
