BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

                                  C.C.No.46/2014

Dated this the 24^th day of September 2014.

D.Thiruvengadam,

S/o.Dhanasegaran

No.5, Dharga Street,

Bahour & Post, Puducherry-607 402.                               ….       Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s.Poorvika Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

    Rep. by its Authorised Signatory

    No.181, Anna Salai, Puducherry-605 001.

2. M/s.Onida Service Centre,

    Rep. by its Authorised Signatory

    No.159, Eswaran Koil Street,

    Puducherry-605 001.

                                                                                                ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

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

            PRESIDENT 

THIRU S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE, B.Com., B.L.,

MEMBER

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

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT               : Thiru.G.Krishnan and R.Rajavelu,  Advocates.

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES     : Exparte  

O R  D  E  R

(By    Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President )

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act praying to direct:

The opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3,500/- to the complainant for their monetary loss towards the cost of Mobile Phone.

The opposite parties to pay a sum of R.50,000/- as compensation for mental sufferings of the complainant/

The opposite parties to pay cost of Rs.5000/-

2. The case of the complainant is as follows:

            The complainant has purchased Onida F-101 model Mobile phone from the first opposite party on 01.02.2012 for consideration of Rs.3500/- and the same has been insured by the first opposite party with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., under the Cellular Insurance Policy.  In the said mobile phone the touch screen was not properly functioning and the same was informed to the first opposite party.   As advised by the first opposite party, the complainant handed over the said mobile phone to the second opposite party on 25.05.2012 for repairing since the second opposite party is the authorised service centre of Onida Products in Puducherry.  The second opposite party informed the complainant to hand over the charger and head set for issuing new mobile phone to him and accordingly the complainant has handed over the same to the second opposite party on 26.06.2012. Inspite of repeated demands made by the complainant, the opposite parties have not come forward to issue new mobile phone.   Thereafter the complainant wrote a registered letter to the first opposite party on 29.08.2012 for issuing new mobile phone.  Though the said letter was acknowledged by the first opposite party on 31.08.2012, they have not come forward to issue new mobile phone so far. On 22.12.2012, the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties and the said notice were received by the opposite parties 1 and 2 on 27.12.2012 and 28.12.2012 respectively.  The second opposite party has given evasive reply for the advocate notice. The first opposite party has not chosen to send any reply.  Hence this complaint.

3.         All the opposite parties remained absent and were set exparte.

4.         The complainant has chosen to examine himself as CW.1 and marked Exs.C1 to C9.

5.         Points for determination are:

Whether the complainant is the consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act?

Whether any deficiency in service caused by the opposite parties to the complainant?

To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

6.         Point No.1:

            The complainant has purchased ONIDA F 101 mobile phone from the first opposite party duly manufactured by the second opposite party for a valid consideration of Rs.3500/- on 01.02.2012 vide Ex.C1. Hence the complainant is the consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act.

7.         Point No.2:

            We have perused the pleadings, exhibits and evidence adduced by the complainant.  The opposite parties were served and remained absent. They were set exparte.  It is evident through Ex.C1 that the complainant has purchased one ONIDA F101 mobile phone manufactured by the second opposite party and sold by the first opposite party on 01.02.2012 for Rs.3500/-.  The opposite parties have facilitated the complainant with insurance policy for the mobile phone with New India Assurance Company.  Ex.C2 is the proposal details and the period of insurance coverage is for one year.  The complainant alleges that within four months from the date of purchase of the mobile phone, i.e. on 25.05.2012 the touch screen of the said mobile phone was not properly functioning and the same was informed to the first opposite party.

As per the advice of the first opposite party the complainant handed over the said mobile phone to the second opposite party on 25.05.2012 to rectify the repair.  Ex.C3 is the job sheet for the same and it contains the entry in respect of the "touch screen problem".   The further allegation of the complainant is that even after lapse of three months, the second opposite party has not rectified the defects in the mobile phone. The complainant has handed over the remaining accessories i.e charger and headset of the mobile phone to the second opposite party on 26.06.2012.   Hence, the complainant in his letter Ex.C4 dated 29.08.2012 addressed to the first opposite party, demanded a new mobile phone.  Ex.C5 is the acknowledgement due card for Ex.C4.  The complainant submitted that the purpose for which the mobile phone was purchased have not been served and all his efforts were ended in vain.  Hence the complainant issued legal notice Ex.C6, dated 22.12.2012 to the opposite parties.  Ex.C7 and C8 are the postal acknowledgements for the receipt of Ex.C6 by the opposite parties.  The second opposite party has replied for the same in Ex.C9 stating that "On receiving your client's mobile phone, our client had immediately given it to his employee to service the mobile.  But unfortunately the employee who had received your client's mobile, committed suicide without handing over your client's mobile to his colleague or any of the officials.  Hence it became impossible for our client to recover the Mobile.  Further it is stated in Ex.C9 that  "Our client is ever ready to offer your client a new mobile of the same make but your client is not receiving the same". 

8.         From the above facts and circumstance of the case, the first opposite party has admitted the deficiency of service and ready to offer a new ONIDA F101 mobile phone to the complainant.  The complainant pleaded that he suffered very much loss and injuries on account of mental agony and loss of profession. The complainant prays to return the money with interest, compensation and cost.

9.         The complainant proved his claim and the opposite parties have also admitted their inefficiency and deficiency in service. Hence to meet the ends of justice, it is necessary to allow this complaint.

10.       Point No.3

            In view of the decision taken in point no.2, the complainant is entitled for the following relief and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

In the result,

The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3500/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. to the complainant from 01.02.2012 till realisation of the amount within one month of receipt of this order,

The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings.

Dated at Pondicherry on this the 24^th day of September 2014.

ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)

MEMBER

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

OPPOSITE PARTIES’ WITNESS: 

COMPLAINANT’S EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTIES' EXHIBITS:  Nil

ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)

MEMBER

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER