BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.08/2012

Dated this the 6^th day of February 2015.

Mahendhiran

S/o.C.Ramalingam

Retired Government Officer

No.55/38, Azhagappa nagar

(Opp. To GH)

Cuddalore-607 001.                                                            ….       Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s.Videocon Industries Ltd.,

    Rep. by its Managing Director

    No.14 Kms Stones, Autangabad,

    Paithan Road, Chitegaon, Paithan taluk

    Aurangabad District-431 105.

2. M/s.Accel Front Line Services Ltd.,

    Rep. by its Regional Manager,

    No.128, 1^st Floor, Kamatchiamman Koil Street,

    Puducherry-605 001.

3. M/s.Mani Electronics,

    Rep. by its Proprietor/Authorised Signatory

    No.271/2, Maraimalai Adigal Salai,

    Puducherry-1.                                                                   ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

            THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

            PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A.,B.L.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT           :  Thiru.S.Vimal, Advocate.

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES : OP.1 – Exparte,

      OP.2 – A.Manivannan, Authorised person

      OP.3 - Exparte

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying :

1. Direct the opposite parties either jointly or severally, to refund a sum of Rs.4650/- towards the price of the mobile phone as per section 14(c) of C.P. Act.
2. Direct the opposite parties, either jointly or severally, to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. thereon from the date of this complaint till complete discharge thereof towards compensation for the physical hardship, mental agony and monetary loss caused to complainant due to opposite parties  selling a defective product and deficiency in service as per section 14(d) of the C.P. Act.
3. Direct the opposite parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost and expenditure towards the complaint.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

            The complainant is a retired Assistant Treasury Officer of Government of Tamil nadu. When he approached the third opposite party to purchase a mobile, there he was advised to purchase a phone of Videocon company with model No.1705-2CB and informed that it carried warranty of one year provided by its manufacturer/1^st opposite party.  He purchased the said mobile phone from the third opposite party on 11.09.2010 vide cash bill no.14685.  While the complainant insisted for issue of warranty card, the third opposite party assured that the same can be availed, if any problem arose by production of the cash bill issued by them. Within a short span of his purchase of the mobile phone, there were troubles in the phone including lack of clarity in voice either while talking to someone or while receiving phone calls and very often had charging problem and unable to manage further the trouble, the complainant approached the third opposite party, who in turn advised the complainant to approach the second opposite party.  On 25.01.2011, he handed over the impugned mobile phone with its accessory to the second opposite party including battery.   After attending the defects, the second opposite party returned the rectified mobile to the complainant on 04.02.2011.  Despite the second opposite party repaired the defects, the same did not function properly and the same problem repeated.  Once again the complainant reported about defects to the third opposite party on 18.07.2011. On receiving the mobile phone, the third opposite party had given an acknowledgement.   As informed by the third opposite party, he has lodged a complaint over phone to the Service Head of the second opposite party.

            Despite complaints, the problem remains unresolved.  The complainant expressed the physical  hardship and mental agony suffered by him, due to supply of defective phone.  He has sent a letter dated 26.07.2011 to the opposite parties 1 and 2 to give replacement for the defective mobile phone.  Even after lapse of 45 days, there was no response from them.  Once again he has sent an another letter dated 02.09.2011 to the opposite parties 1 to 3 through registered post.  Though the said letter was acknowledged by the opposite parties,  there was no response from the opposite parties 1 and 2.  The third opposite party has given a direction to M/s.Rahul Marketing, Distributor of the 1^st opposite party in Puducherry to replace the said defect phone with another phone or refund the cost for the same vide his letter dated 07.09.2011.  Till date the opposite parties have neither replaced the defective phone or refunded the cost of the phone and thereby caused further hardship and mental agony to the complainant. The complainant assess his loss and injury by physical hardship, mental agony and monetory loss to its minimum for a sum of Rs.25000/-.   Hence this complaint.

Hence this complaint.

4.         The reply version of the second opposite party is as follows:

            This opposite party denied all the allegations made out in the complaint.   This opposite party is only authorised service providers of UDCL and their representative.  This opposite party deny the entire complaint as a premeditated claim and state that except for the statements admitted by them the rest of the complaint is a hasty preconceived one.  The parts were replaced, no charges were claimed, the complainant has personally taken possession of his mobile.  This opposite party submitted that the complainant is not trained professional to state that the mobile is still defective that too without physical custody of the mobile.  As a service provider this opposite party is bound to function along with the lines of warranty of the manufacturer and to the satisfaction of the customers with the limited warranty, available alongwith the product.  As this opposite party is party to the proceedings stated in annexure 5, they deny about the knowledge of any of the statements made therein.  On the first occasion, the mobile phone was repaired free of cost within reasonable time and thus there is no ground for deficiency to arise.   After escalation to the manufacturer and the legal notice issued on 02.09.2011, the manufacturer started interacting with the complainant to provide him with a solution.   The complainant who insisted on replacement at the first instant of repair was not convinced on any proposal.  Even under warranty stipulation only a replacement is allowed and no cash is discussed as a warranty policy, but the complainant was adamant of receiving an amount alongwith the replacement, that was not acceptable to the manufacturer.  The complainant has not shown efficacious reasons for deficiency of service or manufacturing defect through his complaint except for making pure surmises. The complaint may be dismissed against this opposite party as there is no ground for deficiency of service.  

6.         On the side of the complainant, Exs.C1 to C7 were marked on consent. On the side of the second opposite party, one Mr.A.Manivannan, incharge inventory and logistics, has been examined as R.W.1

7.         Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer to opposite parties?
2. Whether the opposite parties are indulged in deficiency in service?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

8.         Point No.1:

            The complainant purchased one Videocon Handset, 1705-2GB from the third opposite party for the valid consideration of Rs.4650/- on 11.09.2010 vide Ex.C1.  Admittedly the first opposite party is the manufacturer and the second opposite party is the service provider, vide Ex.C2, 3, 4.  Hence the complainant is the consumer for the opposite parties.

9.         Point No.2:

            We have perused the pleadings, reply filed by the second opposite party, exhibits filed by the complainant and evidence adduced by both the parties.  There is no dispute in regard with the purchase of Videocon Handset on 11.09.2010 from the third opposite party and the first opposite party is the manufacturer and the second opposite party is the service provider.

10.       We have ascertained from the Ex.C3, dated 25.01.2011, Ex,C2, dated 25.06.2011 and Ex.C4, dated 18.07.2011, that the mobile phone purchased by the complainant reportedly by hang and hearing audio and MIC problem.  The opposite parties have attended the problem time to time, even then the problem has not rectified by the second opposite party.  The complainant wrote the letter Ex.C5, dated 26.07.2011 to the Service Head and Ex.C6 series dt.02.09.2011 to the opposite parties requesting them to refund the cost of the cell phone.  The third opposite party instructed the Rahul Marketing who is the distributor of the said mobile phone vide Ex.C7, dated 07.09.2011 to replace the hand set with new one or to issue credit note for refund of the cash to the complainant.

11.       The complainant purchased the handset for his use but it is not functioned upto his satisfaction. Being the handset was with the second opposite party, they have handed over the set before this Forum only on 06.06.2014.    The complainant being a senior citizen put into hardship and mental agony for more than one year by the opposite parties.  The complainant has sent letter Ex.C5 and Ex.C6-series to the opposite parties demanding them to repay the cost paid by him for the hand set. It is evident from Ex.C7, the letter dated 07.09.2011, that the third opposite party i.e. the seller of the handset intend to replace the handset with new one or to refund the price of the hand set.  Form the above facts and circumstances and discussions it is clear that the said handset is unable to operate by the complainant and fault remains during the warranty period.  The complainant has proved the deficiency in service of the opposite parties and defect in the handset.  Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant. This Forum feels that to solve the problem it is necessary to direct the opposite parties to refund the price of the handset.  The replacement of the handset should not solve the problem.

12.       Point No.3:

            In view of the decision taken in the point no.2, the complainant is entitled for the relief.  Hence the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund the amount of Rs.4650/-, the cost of the handset to the complainant and to pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation to the complainant for their deficiency in service.  The opposite parties are entitled to get back the handset deposited before this Forum. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings.

Dated this the 6^th day of February 2015.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:  

CW.1             22.01.2014                Mahendiran

OPPOSITE PARTIES’ WITNESS: 

RW.1              10.03.2014                Manivannan

 COMPLAINANT’S EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS:    Nil

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER