FA.No.1057/2011 against C.C.No.861/2010 District Forum-III, Hyderabad .

Between

Mr.Pally Srikanth

S/o.late Sri Pally Swamy

Aged about 32 years,

Occ:Government Employee,

R/o.H.No.9-1-1/176, Bapunagar,

Lunger House, Hyderabad-500 008.                                ..Appellant/

                                                                                Complainant

                And

1. M/s Reliance Webstore Limited,

    Reg. office:H Block, I floor,

    Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City,

    Thane-Belapur Road,

    Koperkhairne,

    Navi Mumbai-400 710

    Represented by its Managing Director.

2. M/s Reliance World OTC,

    MPM Mall, I floor,

    Opp:GPO, Abids,

    Hyderabad, rep. by its

    Manager.

3. M/s LG Electronics India Private Limited,

    Regd. Office, Plot no.51, Surajpur Kasna Road,

    Greater Noida-210306 (UP)

    Rep. by its Managing Director.

4. M/s Reliable Communication

    G-8, 3-6-561, Aalto’s A & M Trade

    Centre, Himayathnagar,

    Hyderabad, rep. by its

    Proprietor.                                                              Respondents/

                                                                                Opp.parties

Counsel for the Appellant               :  M/s.B.Shashidhar

Counsel for the Respondents         :  M/s M.Srinivas-R1, 2 and 4

                                                     M/s Narayan Laxman Rao-R3

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

          AND

SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

***

        Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.

        The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a mobile phone by paying Rs.4,990/-.  When it started giving voice problem, he approached opposite party No.4, authorized dealer who directed him to pay Rs.3,208/- towards repair charges.  In fact the phone was in warranty period and it was bound to repair it or replace it.  After issuing legal notice, he filed the complaint claiming  replacement of the defective instrument with a new one together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs.

        Opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 resisted the case.  While admitting the sale of phone to him however, stated that the phone was never defective.  For the first time on 13-11-2009, he complained about voice problem.  On verification, it was found that it was already opened.  The said fact was intimated to the complainant and directed him to pay Rs.3,208/- for getting it repaired.  There was neither deficiency in service nor defect in the goods.  The job card dated 11-11-2009 signed by the complainant confirm the same, therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

        The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got  Exs.A1 to A10 marked while opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 filed the affidavit of Legal Co-ordinator of opposite party No.1, 2 and 4.

        The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record, opined that for the instrument that was purchased on 19-11-2008, he complained of defect on 13-11-2009, nearly one year after its purchase and when warranty period is going to expire, he complained defect in the said phone. The job card, Ex.A2, discloses that the instrument was in open condition.  The endorsement is that mother board has to be replaced.  Therefore it held that there is no deficiency in service and dismissed the complaint.

        Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective.  It ought to have seen that the mobile phone was within the period of warranty and without examining the instrument, R4, authorized service centre had issued invoice stating that the mother board had problem and  had to pay certain amount for effecting repairs which amounts to deficiency in service and therefore prayed that the complaint be allowed.

        The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by any mis-appreciation of fact or law in that regard?

        It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had purchased a mobile on 19-11-2008 evidenced under original invoice cum challan, Ex.A1.  For the first time he complained that the instrument was defective on 13-11-2009 and approached R4, authorized service centre who issued an estimation and directed him to pay Rs.3,208/- towards repair charges evidenced under Ex.A2, estimation.  The complainant alleges that right from the beginning the mobile was defective and it had voice problem.  At no point of time, the complainant complained about the defect of the instrument.  The instrument could not have worked for a period of 11 months had the instrument been defective.  Therefore, it could not be a manufacturing defect.  R4 after examining the instrument observed that it was already in open condition and mother board tracks were replaced.  This was not disputed by the complainant by examining any of the technicians, to prove that R4 was coming with a false version.  If really R4 was wrong in stating that  the mother board was to be replaced, he ought to have taken the instrument to an expert technician.  He could have let in evidence to show that the estimation made by R4 was incorrect.  Without any evidence whatsoever, the contention of the complainant that there was defect in the instrument cannot be believed.  We reiterate that he could not have used the phone for one year if there was a defect in it and he could not have waited for 11 long months.  Obviously the complainant intended to get a new instrument.  After noticing a problem, just before expiry of the warranty period, he alleged  defect in the instrument.  Since the complainant could not prove that he did not open it nor there was any problem with the mother board, we do not see any misappreciation of fact or law by the District Forum in this regard. 

        In the result this appeal fails and is accoordingly dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                                Sd/-PRESIDENT.

Sd/-MEMBER.

JM                                                                             Dt.17-9-2012.