Date of filing: 22-12-2011.
Date of disposal: 14-11-2012.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao, B.Sc., B. L., President
Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., Member
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Wednesday, the 14th day of November, 2012
C.C.No.2 of 2012
Between:
Consumer Guidance Society Representing: Sri B.Durga Rao, S/o Shri B.Tataiah Naidu, D.No:24-14-78, Kundeti Vari Street, Durgapuram, Vijayawada-520003, Krishna District,
….Complainant
And
1. M/s Unviercell, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Ground Floor, Vijetha Hospital, Eluru Road, Vijayawada-02..
2. M/s.Micro Max Informatics Limtied, Represented by its Managing Director, 9/52/1, Keerti Nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi-110015.
3. M/s.Divya Communicaztions, Represented by its Proprietor, Shop No:29-37-97, Beside Apollo Pharmacy, Opp: CPI Building, Eluru Road, Vijayawada-520002.
. … Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before for final hearing on 06-11-2012 in the presence of Consumer Guidance Society for complainant, opposite parties remained absent and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum doth order the following:
ORDER:
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by complainant under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act with a prayer to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to replace the defective set with a defect free one of same brand or to refund the entire sale consideration of Rs.3,655/-, to award compensation for mental agony, discomfort and deprivation of usage of mobile set.
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant purchased a Micro Max X-450 mobile set for a sum of Rs.3,655/- on 5-10-2011 vide invoice No.Pvya/2071 from the 1st . But the said set was found defective and he handed over the same to 3rd service center on 19-10- 2011 vide job sheet No. S040187-1011-284778 for rectification of defect and the 3rd agreed to redeliver the same within three days. But the 3rd opposite party has not delivered the same on the ground that the spares are not available. The 3rd opposite party also informed that no specific date could be given for redelivery of repaired set. At that juncture, the complainant had requested the 1st opposite party to replace the defective set with a defect free one as the same is within warranty period. But the 1st opposite party refused for the same and on that the complainant has lodged a complaint with the present public spirited society and the society issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 15-11-2011 and the opposite parties 1 and 3 received the said notice and the notice of 2nd opposite party returned. But there is no response from the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties. Though the notices were served on opposite parties 1 and 2, they did not choose to make their appearance. Even the 3rd opposite party got filed vakalat, but no version is filed and not contested the matter.
3. The complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A4.
4. Heard and perused the record.
5. Now the point that arises for consideration in this complaint are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
ii) If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
6. Point No.1 : On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavit and documents), the plea of the complainant is that he purchased a Micro Max X-
450 model mobile hand set from the 1st opposite party on 05-10-2011 for a consideration of Rs.3,655/- under Ex.A1. The said mobile set was not functioned properly from the date of its purchase and got repair within fifteen days i.e. 19-10- 2011 and he handed over the same to 3rd opposite party for repair who is authorized service center on 19-10-2011 under Ex.A2 customer job card bearing No.S040187-1011-284778. Ex.A2 job card also clarifies the same. According to complainant, the 3rd opposite party assured to deliver the same within three days, but did not do so on the ground that he required spare parts. But thereafter also he did not return the set to complainant and also stated that he could not give specific date for returning the set. As seen from Ex.A2 job sheet, it is evident that the mobile set has got some defect and it was handed over on 19-10-2011 i.e. within fourteen days of purchase. Further as per complainant version, he also urged the 1st opposite party to replace the defective mobile with defect free mobile of the same brand which is in the warrant period, but the 1st opposite party refused the same and the complainant had lodged a complaint with the Consumer Guidance Society and the society issued a legal notice to the opposite parties vide Ex.A3 on
15-11-2011 and the same was received by the opposite parties 1 and 3. The notice of 2nd opposite party returned.
7. According to Section 2(1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act any fault or imperfection or short coming in its quality, potency, performance or standard which is required to be maintained by under any Law for the time being in force or as is claimed by a trader in any manner whatever in relation to any goods comes within the mischief of defective goods. As per Section 14(1) (a) & (b) the buyer is entitled to remedy by way of either removal of the defect or by way of replacing the goods with similar description or by way of return of the price or charges paid by the consumer.
8. In the instant case, the mobile set was not functioning properly within warrant period. The 1st opposite party is dealer and seller of said mobile and the said mobile is manufactured by the 2nd opposite party and the 3rd opposite party is the authorized service center. The 1st opposite party neither replaced the defective mobile set nor refunded the costs of the mobile to the complainant and the 3rd who is authorized service center for the 2nd opposite party did not rectify the defect in the mobile set. Though the opposite parties 1 and 2 received notices in this case failed to contest the matter and remained exparte. The counsel for 3rd opposite party filed vakalat, but has not filed any version and not contested the matter. So the allegations of complainant remained unchallenged. Selling of defective goods by opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and non-rectifying the defective goods within warranty period amounts to deficiency in service. Hence we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3 as the opposite parties 1 and 2 supplied a defective mobile set to the complainant and the 3rd opposite party failed to rectify the defects. Accordingly this point is answered.
Point No.2
9. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly and the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally are directed to refund the cost of mobile set of Rs.3,665/- (Rupees three thousand six hundred and sixty five only) and also pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) together with costs of Rs.500/- to the complainant. The opp.parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receiving copy of this order.
Type written by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 14th day of November, 2012.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
On behalf of the complainant: On behalf of opposite parties:
Sri B.Durga Rao, -None-
(by affidavit) - PW-1
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 05.10.2011 Original copy of tax invoice.
Ex.A2 19.10.2011 Original copy of material received note.
Ex.A3 15.11.2010 copy of legal notice got issued by the complainant to OP.
Ex.A4 postal receipts and returned postal cover.
On behalf of opposite parties: NIL
PRESIDENT
