Date of Complaint  : 11.08.2015

                                                                 Date of Order         :17.03.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT :    THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L.,                  :  PRESIDENT                     

                     TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                :  MEMBER – I

                     DR.T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.No. 319 / 2015

THIS THURSDAY  17^TH  DAY OF MARCH 2016

B. Pratap,

S/o. Brahmiah,

No.21, Veerabathiran Street,

Srinivasa Apartment,

Flat No.4,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai 600 034.                                           .. Complainant.

                                                         - Vs-

For the complainant             :   M/s.S.Sundarraj & another        

For the opposite parties       :   Exparte  (appeared party in person)

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

1. Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite parties  to pay  a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation along with cost of the mobile and cost of complaint to the complainant.
2. Further the opposite parties though appeared in person in  beginning of this proceedings, but subsequently not filed written version and not contested the case  as such they remained set exparte on 7.1.2016

3.     Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6  filed by the complainant  and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant counsel.  

4.      The complainant contended that he purchased one Mobile phone Model No.T-40 Panasonic from the 1^st opposite party on 23.5.2015 for a sum of Rs.5,700/-.  On the same day he found fault in the mobile phone in which the sim card insert slot was damaged and he gave the said mobile to the 1^st opposite party on the same day and requested to replace with the new mobile.   But the 1^st opposite party refused to it and directed the complainant to approach the service centre at T.Nagar.   He also approached the 2^nd opposite party through customer care service but there was no response.    The 2^nd opposite party supplied defective mobile to the 1^st opposite party and he in turn  sold to the complainant which is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Hence he issued a legal notice to opposite parties on 12.6.2015 the same was received by them but they failed to comply his demand.    Hence the complainant filed the above complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay cost of the mobile along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of the complaint.

5.     It is evidenced through Ex.A1 that the complainant purchased one mobile phone Model No.T-40 Panasonic from the 1^st opposite party on 23.5.2015 for a sum of Rs.5,700/-.   The grievance of the complainant is that on the very same day of purchase he found that the sim card insert slot was damaged and when he handed over the said mobile to the 1^st opposite party and requested for replacement of the new mobile the 1st opposite party refused to it and directed to approach the service centre.  But the complainant returned the said mobile to the 1^st opposite party.  The endorsement made on the page No.II  of the purchase bill by the 1^st opposite party reveals that the complainant has given the complaint mentioned mobile to them on the very same day of purchase due to defects mentioned in the complaint.  

6.     The averment made in the complaint as well as the documents on record shows that inspite of receipt of the defective mobile on the very same day of purchase the 1^st opposite party did not take any effort to comply the request of the complainant for replacement of a new mobile, but retaining with them.    It also shows that there is some defect in the mobile due to which it does not function immediately on the date of purchase.  But the act of the 1^st opposite party directing the complainant to approach the service centre is not sustainable in this case.    Even after receipt of legal notice i.e. Ex.A3, the opposite parties never come forward to comply the grievance of the complainant.   Further the act of 1^st opposite party in not responding to the complainant when he contacted them in customer care service shows their negligence.    The opposite parties ought to have convinced the complainant by replacing with a new mobile instead they have not come forward even till today to comply his demand and also never come forward before this forum to give any contra evidence to defend their case and remained exparte.    As such it clearly shows that the opposite parties had sold defective mobile and committed deficiency in service.  

7.     Further the contention of the complainant that due to the act of the opposite parties he suffered much hardship without the mobile as he is a practicing Advocate is also acceptable.  

8.     Under these circumstances we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the cost of the mobile since it is a brand new mobile along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service and mental agony and also cost of the complaint    Whereas the compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant and he is entitled only for a just and reasonable compensation.  

        In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,700/- (Rupees Five thousand and seven hundred only)  towards cost of the complaint mentioned mobile and also to pay  a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only)  towards litigation charges to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above amounts  (Rs.5,700/- & Rs.10,000/-) will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of realization.

                Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 17^th    day of  March   2016.

MEMBER-I                                        MEMBER-II                                           PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1-  23.5.2015     - Copy of tax invoice.

Ex.A2- 23.5.2015      - Copy of receipt of the mobile phone received by the

                               1^st opposite party.

Ex.A3- 12.6.2015      - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A4-           12.6.2015      - Copy of registered postal receipt.

Ex.A5- 12.6.2015      - Copy of service intimation by the Postal authorities.

Ex.A6- 15.6.2015      - Copy of Service intimation by the postal authorities.

Opposite party’s side documents: -  

 .. Nil ..   (exparte)

MEMBER-I                                         MEMBER-II                                          PRESIDENT.