Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/69/2014

Kurugodu Eresappa, S/o. K.Hariharappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Sony India Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

S.Varadarajulu

10 Sep 2015

ORDER

Filing Date:02.12.2014

Order Date: 10.09.2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

TIRUPATI

 

     PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

THURSDAY THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

 

C.C.No.69/2014

 

Between

 

Kurugodu Eresappa,

S/o. K.Hariharappa,

D.No.15-13-1, Srinivasa Nagar,

Oil Mill Road (Opp. Cotton Mill Gate),

Renigunta Road,

Tirupati – 517 506.                                                              … Complainant

 

And

 

1.         M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

            Rep. by its Managing Director,

            A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

            Mathura Road,

            New Delhi – 110 044.

 

2.         M/s. Naidu Communications,

            Rep. by its Proprietor,

            D.No.118, Nimmakayala Street,

            Tirupati.

 

3.         M/s. Rayalaseema Enterprises,

            Rep. by its Sole Proprietor,

            D.No.18-2-268/20-D, Tirumala Bye-pass Road,

            Korlagunta,

            Near Leela Mahal Junction,

            Tirupati.                                                                     …  Opposite parties.

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 26.08.15 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.S.Varadarajulu, counsel for complainant, and opposite parties remained exparte, and  having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY T.ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

 

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, contending that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, as the cell phone purchased by the complainant was found defective, shortly after the date of purchase and inspite of notice, they did not respond and rectify the same.

            2.  The case of the complainant is that on 07.12.2013, he purchased a cell phone “SONY XPERIS MODEL NO.C2305” from the 2^nd opposite party, which was manufactured by 1^st opposite party, by paying an amount of Rs.20,600/- and the said cell phone got one year warranty period, and on 04.09.2014 he noticed that the cell phone gave problem i.e. no display on the screen, on the advise of 2^nd opposite party   he approached 3^rd opposite party i.e. authorized service centre on 05.09.2014 and handed-over cell phone to the 3^rd opposite party, they returned the cell phone to the complainant as if the cell phone was repaired on 06.09.2014 by collecting service charges of Rs.112/-, but shortly it was found to be not properly functioning and inspite of repeated attempts made by the complainant, the opposite parties 2 and 3 did not respond to get the defect rectified, and finally a legal notice was issued on 29.10.2014, after receipt of the said notice also, the opposite parties failed to rectify the defect. Hence, finally he filed the present complaint and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2, to replace the cell phone with a new one or to refund the cost of the cell phone of Rs.20,600/- along with interest and also to pay damages to a tune of Rs.20,000/- and costs of the complaint.

            3.  Notices were sent to opposite parties and they remained absent and set exparte.

            4. Complainant filed his chief affidavit and written arguments and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 on his behalf. Heard the counsel for complainant.

            5.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether there is any defect in the cell phone as stated by the complainant and there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

            (ii)  To what relief?

            6.  Point No.(i):-  The chief affidavit of the complainant reiterated the contents in the complaint. As already pointed out that the opposite parties remained exparte and did not challenge the contents in the chief affidavit. The contention of the complainant is that the cell phone purchased by him was defective and there is no display on the screen, by noticing the said defect, he approached the opposite parties, but they have not responded properly and rectified the defect. The complainant has not purchased the cell phone for pleasure and there is also no reason to hold that the complainant is unnecessarily complaining defect in the cell phone. If really that is so, the opposite parties could have appeared and prove their bona fides, that the cell phone in question is in perfect condition. As the opposite parties failed to appear and oppose the contention of the complainant, the deficiency in service is hold to be proved. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

            7.  Point No.(ii):-  In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to refund a sum of Rs.20,600/- (Rupees twenty thousand six hundred only) towards cost of the cell phone, on returning the above said defective cell phone by the complainant to opposite party No.2, with interest at 9% p.a. from 07.12.2013 i.e. the date of purchase of the cell phone, till realization. The opposite parties 1 and 2 further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards damages for mental agony and deficiency of service and also further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.3,000/- shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization.         

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 10^th day of September, 2015.                

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                            

Lady Member                                                                                                     President

 

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

 

 

 

PW-1: Kurugodu Eresappa (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.A1.	A original copy of cash Bill issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant for purchase of Cell Phone SONY XPRERIS Model No. C2305. Dt: 07.12.2013.
2.	A original copy of Terms and conditions copy issued by 2nd opposite party to the Complainant. Dt: 07.12.2013.
3.	A Original copy of Warranty certificate issued by 2nd opposite party on behalf of 1st opposite party. Dt: 07.12.2013.
4.	A original copy of Repair invoice-cum-cash issued by 3rd opposite party. Dt: 06.09.2014.
5.	Office copy of legal notice issued to the opposite parties along with postal receipts. Dt: 29.10.2014.
6.	Acknowledgement card from opposite party No.2. Dt: 05.11.2014.

 

 

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 parties.