Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/49/2017

B.Ramesh, S/o B.Sambasiva Naidu - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Srivalli Communications, Tirupati, rep. by its authorized signatory - Opp.Party(s)

A.Sudarsana Babu

25 May 2018

ORDER

         

 

                                                                                                Filing Date: 10-10-2017                                                                                                               Order Date: 25-05-2018

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. M. Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                     Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

FRIDAY THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MAY, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

 

C.C.No.49/2017

Between

B.Ramesh, S/o. B. Sambasiva Naidu,

Hindu, aged about 25 years, working in

Judicial Department of Tirupati court complex,

Tirupati, residing at D.No. 6-2/B,

 Dhanalakshmi Nagar, Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                          … Complainant

 

And

M/s. Srivalli Communications, Tirupati,

Represented by its authorized Signatory

having its address as No.171, G.Car Street,

Opp. Govindarajaswamyvari Temple,

Tirupati, Chittoor District.                                                           … Opposite party

 

        This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 16.05.2018 and upon perusing the complaint, affidavit, written arguments of the complainant and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri. A.Sudharsana Babu, counsel for the complainant and opposite party is remained exparte having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, by the complainant against the opposite party for the following reliefs: i) to direct the opposite party to replace the handset by a new one or to pay Rs.10,000/- the cost of the handset, ii) to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- towards damages and for mental agony caused to the complainant, iii) to direct the opposite party to pay costs of the complaint  and pass such other or further reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

         2.The brief averments of the complaint are: that the complainant purchased LENOVO K6 Power (Gold) handset through Flipkart from Health & Happiness Pvt. Ltd., Panapakam Village, Gummidipundi, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu for Rs.9,999/- on 19.04.2017 vide invoice No. FOYOKO3818-00165579. That two months after purchase of the handset, charging problem developed in the handset. On coming to know that the opposite party is an authorized service centre, on 27.06.2017 complainant approached the opposite party and explained the problem in the handset. The opposite party on the same day issued  job sheet No. 12126 dt: 27.06.2017 wherein it was clearly mentioned that the handset is under warranty and said that the problem is  with charging pin and asked the complainant to come after two days. When the complainant approached the opposite party after two days, they sought two more days to rectify the problem. Accordingly when the complainant approached opposite party, they said that the handset is “out of warranty and water damaged”. Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite party on 04.08.2017 but, the opposite party neither rectify the problem nor gave reply thus committed negligence and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

        3. The opposite party though received notice from the Forum remained exparte without making appearance and filing its written version.

        4. The complainant filed his evidence affidavit as PW-1 and got marked Ex: A1 to A4 and also filed written arguments.

        5. Now the points for consideration are:

             (i)  Whether there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite party?                  

             (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

             (iii)  To what Relief?

                    6.Point No (i):-   The complainant’s allegation is that, he purchased LENOVO K6 Power (Gold) handset through Flipkart from Health & Happiness Pvt. Ltd., Panapakam Village, Gummidipundi, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu for Rs.9,999/- on 19.04.2017 under vide invoice No. FOYOKO3818-00165579 undisputedly, that two months after purchase of the handset charging problem developed in the handset. As the complainant came to know that the opposite party is an authorized service centre for LENOVO handsets, approached the opposite party and explained the problem that  developed in the LENOVO handset covered by Ex:A1 invoice. The opposite party also verified the handset and issued job sheet under Ex:A2 in which it was found that the handset is within the warranty period, but, the opposite party could not rectify the problem though taken sufficient time for effect the repairs in the handset. In support of the case of the complainant, he also filed his evidence affidavit in which he reiterated the complaint averments. It was supported by Ex:A1 to A3. The evidence of complainant remained un challenged. Though the opposite party received notice under Ex:A3 dt: 04.08.2017 and also, served notice in this case after filing the complaint, did not chose appear before the Forum and did not place its contest. So it appears that the opposite party has impliedly accepted the complaint allegations.

                     Under the above circumstances we are of the opinion that, the complainant has established that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite party in not rectifying the LENOVO handset purchased by the complainant under Ex:A1 though problem was developed within warranty period (i.e. within two months from date of purchase) and the opposite party failed to replace the handset as demanded by the complainant and also not refunded  its cost. Accordingly this point is answered.

        7.Point No(ii):-   In view of the unchallenged evidence of the complainant and in view of our discussion on point No.1 we are of the opinion that, there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite party and that the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for to some extent. The complainant being the consumer has right to get the new handset in place of defective handset or alternatively to get the cost of the handset from the Health & Happiness Pvt. Ltd., from whom the complainant purchased the handset in question, that the complainant is also entitled for compensation for deficiency in service from the opposite party. Accordingly this point is answered.

        8.Point (iii):-    In view of our holding on points 1 and 2 we are of the opinion that, the complainant has established that he is a consumer under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and got right to get the reliefs sought for against the opposite party and the Flipkart and Health and Happiness Pvt. Ltd., or the Lenovo company the manufacture of the handset. But,for the reasons best known,the complainant failed to add “The Flipkart”, “Health and Happiness Pvt. Ltd.,” from whom the complainant purchased the LENOVO handset and also the “LENOVO Company” the manufacture of the LENOVO K6 POWER (Gold) Mobile handset as parties to the proceedings. The complainant failed to establish that the mobile handset is having manufacturing defect. The opposite party is only an authorized service centre, its liability is confined to extend its service by carrying out repairs to the handset. If the handset has manufacturing defect, then Lenovo Company is liable either for replace the handset with new one or refund its cost alternatively. The complaint therefore is to be allowed accordingly.

         In the result, complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards compensation for  deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. Since the complainant failed to add “Flipkart”, “Health & Happiness Pvt. Ltd., from whom the complainant purchased LENOVO k6 power (Gold) handset and the “LENOVO Company” the manufacturer as parties to the proceedings, he is not entitled to the relief of replacement of the LENOVO handset or to refund of its cost of Rs.10,000/- from the opposite party, who is only an authorized service centre. The opposite party is not even “an authorized dealer” hence, the opposite party is not liable to replacement of the handset with new one or to refund of its cost. The opposite party also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards cost of the litigation. The opposite party is further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which, the above compensation amount of   Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 25^th day of May, 2018.

         Sd/-                                                                                                             Sd/-

 Lady Member                                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:  B. Ramesh  (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

-NIL-

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Retail tax Invoice/Bill in original. Dt: 19.04.2017.
	Original copy of Service Job Sheet vide Job Sheet No.12126 issued by the opposite party. Dt: 27.06.2017.
	Office copy of the Legal Notice caused by the complainant to the opposite party with postal receipt. Dt: 04.08.2017.
	Acknowledgement Card. Dt: 08.08.2017.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

 

                                                                                                           Sd/-

    President

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant, 

                  2) The Opposite party.