BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT-HYDERABAD.FA.No.55/2008 against CC.No.596/2007 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Hyderabad.
Between-
Raghavender Raja,
S/o.Raja Venkateswarlu,
R/o.6-3-192, Jainagar Colony,
New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad – 500 080.
…Appellant/Complainant.
And
1.Sri Mukesh, Proprietor,
Shree Mobile Point,
D.No.1-4-40/4, Vasavi Towers,
Near Arya Vaidyasala, S.D.Road,
Secunderbad.
2.The Manager,
Sole Ctron Centum Electronics Limited,
44 KHB Industrial Area,
Yelahanka New Town,
Bangalore – 560 004.
…Respondents/Opp.Parties.
Counsel for the Appellant - Mr. M.V.Raghu.
Counsel for the Respondents - Admn.stage.
QUORUM-THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE LADY MEMBER,
AND
SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Appa Rao, President)
-------
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
1. The complainant preferred this appeal against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Hyderabad in CC.No.596/2007, dated 08.11.2007 in not allowing his claim fully.
2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased one NOKIA N 73 model cell phone from the 1st opposite party on 06.11.2006. When it started giving trouble within a week, he approached the 1st opposite party, the dealer, who expressed his apology and gave another hand set which also started giving trouble. Thereupon, he gave it to the 2nd opposite party, the manufacturer, for repairing the same. Thereafter, he requested the 2nd opposite party that the memory chip should be given back to him as it was having valuable information. However, the 2nd opposite party did not respond properly. Thereupon, he filed the complaint claiming a new piece of Nokia, and to pay Rs.75,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony and costs of Rs.2,000/-.
3. The 1st opposite party did not choose to contest the matter, and therefore, it was set exparte. The 2nd opposite party filed its counter resisting the case. They stated that the cash receipt filed by the complainant was not genuine. There was no defect in the hand set and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant in proof of his case filed Exs.A.1 to A.5, while the 2nd opposite party filed Exs.B.1 and B.2, Service Job Reports.
5. The District Forum after considering the material placed before it opined that the manufacturer had given a hand set, which gave trouble, and therefore, the complainant was entitled to a new Nokia phone. Considering the mental agony suffered by the complainant in this regard, compensation of Rs,5,000/- was awarded besides costs of Rs.1,000/-.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum ought to have awarded Rs.1,00,000/- on the ground that he was entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of LIC business, etc.
7. The point that arises for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the amount claimed in the appeal?
8. At the outset, it may be stated that the complainant cannot claim Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony as he cannot seek more than what he claimed in his own complaint. The grievance of the complainant in his complaint was that the 2nd opposite party, the manufacturer, had given a hand set which has given trouble. Therefore, he sought a new piece of Nokia. This relief was granted by the District Forum after considering the documents filed by him. This relief was justified for which the complainant had no quarrel.
9. The only claim was the amount to be given towards damages. The reason given by the complainant was that he had lost chance of winning a lottery. It is not known how he could not be entitled to lottery, having purchased a hand set from opposite party No.2. The 2nd opposite party did not admit having issued Ex.A.4 a pamphlet promising to give a lack rupees if he were to win a lottery It is not known, who issued it. The name of opposite party No.2 does not find place in Ex.A.4. Even otherwise, the complainant did not claim the prize amount even in his grounds of appeal. Since the District Forum has directed the manufacturer to replace the new Nokia hand set, besides an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards inconvenience caused to him, which we feel is reasonable and modest, we do not see any merits in this appeal. He is not entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- claimed in the appeal. He cannot make fanciful claims. No reason, whatsoever, was given as to how he was entitled to the said amount. We do not see any error in the order of the District Forum.
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
DT-21.04.2008.
Vvr.
