Karnataka

Kolar

CC/6/2015

N.Kishor - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Ridhi sidhi Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.B.N.Vasudeva Murthy

25 Aug 2015

ORDER

  Date of Filing:  06.02.2015

  Date of Order : 25.08.2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR

 

Dated   25^th  AUGUST 2015

 

PRESENT

 

Sri. N.B. KULKARNI                     …….                PRESIDENT

Sri. R. CHOWDAPPA                     ……..     MEMBER

Smt. A.C. LALITHA                       …….      MEMBER

 

 

CC No. 06 / 2015

 

N. Kishor,

S/o. G.N. Nagabhushana Rao,

Aged about 24 years,

Working as Quality Checking Officer,

Indo Automotive Pvt. Ltd.,

Industrial Area,

Narasapura,

Kolar Taluk.

Resident of Gujjanahally,

Duggasandra Hobli,

Mulbagal Taluk,

Kolar District.

 

 

(By Sriyuths B.N. Vasudeva Murthy Adv.)                   ……. Complainant

 

V/s.

 

 

 1. M/s. Ridhi-Sidhi Mobiles,

Kolar Branch,

R/by its Branch Manager,

Nagaraja Buildings,

Near Gandhi Vana,

M.G. Road,

Kolar – 563 101.

 

2. M/s. Ridhi-Sidhi Mobiles,

No.94/95, Maharaja Complex,

B.V.K. Iyangar Road,

Opp. Abhinay Theatre,

Bangalore – 560 009.

 

3. M/s. Sonnet Care,

No.237-240, 13^th Cross,

C.M.H Road, HAL 2^nd Stage,

Behind Shanthi Sagar,

Indira Nagara,

Bangalore – 560 038.

 

4. Sony India Pvt., Ltd.,

A-31, Mohan Co-operative

Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road,

New Delhi – 110 044.

 

(Placed Ex-parte)                                                  …… Opposite Parties

 

ORDER

 

By Sri. N.B. KULKARNI,  PRESIDENT

 

This Complaint is filed by the Complainant against the OPs U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying to pass an order directing the Op No.1,2 & 4 to replace a new mobile set of the description SONY SMART XPERIA PHONE C-2305 Purple, or in the alternatively for refund of Rs.17,500/- being the purchase price of the defective mobile set with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and damages of Rs.5,000/- as well costs.  

 

2.       The facts in brief:

It is contention of the complainant that OP No.1 is the branch at Kolar, OP No.2 being the Dealer is having the office in Bangalore at the above given address, whereas, OP No.3 is the servicing center in Bangalore at the given address, whereas OP No.4 is manufacturer in New Delhi at the given address.

 

3.       It is further contended that on 17.05.2014 he purchased the said mobile set on payment of Rs.17,500/- and that warranty period was for one year and six months from 17.05.2014.   And that the said mobile set became defective on 02.08.2014 and same was given to OP No.3 and got back on 22.08.2014.   And that again the said set went defective and was entrusted to OP No.3 on 24.09.2014.    And that again on 19.10.2014 for the third time the said set became defective whereas on entrustment of the same to the OP No.3 on the said day it was returned on 30.10.2014 with a note that repair was impossible. 

 

4.       So contending the complainant has come up with the complaint on hand.    And on 06.02.2015 along with the complaint he has submitted following three documents:

          1. Tax invoice cum cash receipt cum warrantee for having purchased SONY SMART PHONES: C2305-PURPLE dated 17.05.2014.

          2. Retail invoice/cash memo/bill dated 06.08.2014 issued by the Opponent-3.

          3. Service job sheet issued by the Opponent-3 dated 19-10-2014.

         

5.       It is worth to note that the complainant being BPL Card Holder was exempted from paying fees of Rs.100/- on the complaint.  

 

6.       OP No.1 to 4 have been placed ex-parte.

 

7.       Consequently, the complainant has submitted on 03.08.2015 his affidavit evidence and with memo Tax Invoice for having paid cash of Rs.17,500/- on said day to the OP No.1, Xerox copy of features of the said set, Retail Invoice and Service Job Sheet.   On 24.08.2015 the Learned Counsel for the complainant has submitted Memo to treat complaint and affidavit evidence as written arguments.    On this day heard the said Learned Counsel for the complainant.

 

8.       Therefore, the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:

1. Whether the Complainant proves that the said mobile set so sold on the part of the Ops 1, 2 & 4 is defective?

 

(iii)    Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought

 for?

 

(iv)    What Order ?

 

9.       Our findings to the above points are:

 

1. In the affirmative

 

2. Partly affirmative

 

3. As per final order

 

for the following,

REASONS

 

10.     Point Nos. (i) & (ii) – As these points do deserve common course of discussion and to avoid repetition in reasonings, they are taken up for consideration at a time. 

 

 11.    The averments in the complaint coupled with the said documents and oral evidence of the complainant by way of affidavit have remained unopposed.    So, they are bound to prevail.  

 

12.     Even otherwise on going through the said averments oral and documentary evidence at the instance of the complainant, it cannot be disputed that on 17.05.2014 he purchased the said mobile set on 17.05.2014 on payment of Rs.17,500/- to the OP No.1.    OP No.2 is the dealer and OP No.4 is the manufacturer, hence they are accountable jointly and severally with OP No.1.    OP No.3 being a servicing agency is formal party hence, not accountable.   

 

13.     It cannot be forgotten that on 01.08.2014, 24.09.2014 and on 19.10.2014 the said mobile set was repeatedly produced before the OP No.3 for servicing.    Equally it cannot be forgotten that on 30.10.2014 the OP No.3 made endorsement in writing in service job sheet to the effect that this hand set could never be repaired.    Hence, the complainant has been successful in establishing that the said mobile set sold to the complainant was defective.  

 

14.     Now there is no meaning in asking OP No.1,2 & 4 to replace the said mobile set.   On safer side the complainant has made further prayer for refund with interest and damages.    We are of the opinion that, by directing the complainant to return the said mobile set to the OP No.1,2 & 4 through the OP No.1 and further directing these Ops to refund the said sum of Rs.17,500/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 06.02.2015 would meet the ends of justice.   Hence, the said findings on these points.

 

 

15.     Point No. (iiii) –  In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

 

ORDER

 

1. The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.3,000/- as hereunder, with regard to OP No.1,2 & 4, whereas the same stands dismissed against the OP No.3 with no order as to costs as this OP No.3 is only a formal party.

 

2. Within 30 days from this day the complainant shall return the said mobile set of the description SONY SMART XPERIA PHONE C-2305 Purple, to the OP No.1,2 & 4 through the OP No.1.    And on receipt of the same the OP No.1,2 & 4 shall jointly and severally pay to the complainant said sum of Rs.17,500/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 06.02.2015 till realization.

 

      3.  Send free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, the 25^th August 2015.

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                             MEMBER                 PRESIDENT