Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/429/2014

M/s.Deepa - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.S.Shankar, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Anand Samy & Dhruva

14 Oct 2015

ORDER

                                                                        

                                                                             Date of Complaint  : 31.10.2014

                                                                                     Date of Order      : 14.10.2015

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                     

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

                                                                  

C.C.No. 429 / 2014

THIS  WEDNESDAY  THE 14^TH  DAY OF OCOTBER   2015

 

Ms. Deepa,

Sole Prop. Deep Enterprises,

No.19/8A Reddy Street,

Soni Complex, Villivakkam,

Chennai 600 049.                                                                    .. Complainant.

 

                                                          - Vs-

1. Karbonn Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, No.39/13 off 7th Main, Hal 2nd Stage, Appareddy Palya, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038.   2. Mr.S.Shankar, Sole Prop. Mobile India – TN. No.2/49, North Main Road, West CIT Nagar, Near Nandhi Statue, T.Nagar, Chennai-17.   3. Mr.Munoth Joythi, Sole Prop. Girnar Marketing, Shop pNo.S-2, 2nd Floor, No.16, Wallers Road, Off Mount Road, Chennai-2.                                           ..Opposite parties.		.. Opposite party.

 

For the complainant                           :   M/s. Anand & other     

For the opposite parties 1& 3    :   Exparte. 

 

           Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite parties   to refund a sum of Rs.4200/- the same being the cost of the mobile paid by the complainant or issue a new mobile and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards hardship and mental agony with cost of the  proceedings to the  complainant.

ORDER

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, PRESIDENT  

1.    The Case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

        The complainant had purchased a mobile handset viz Karbonn Smart phone in Model No.A4 bearing IMEI No;.911301252336846 on 25.9.2013 for a sum of Rs.4200/- from the 3^rd opposite party.  The above said mobile phone was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.    The complainant purchased the above said product lured by the advertisements making tall claim that the above product is a state of art business phone and would be an ideal phone for people in respect to connectivity and other features necessary for business people.    Even since the date of purchase i.e. 25.9.2013 when complainant started using the mobile handset the instrument was beset with numerous technical problems with regard to the touch screen malfunctioning, hanging of software etc.  and again experienced immense difficulty in the persistent malfunction of the touch screen and the consequent software hanging,  thus putting the complainant to immense hardship in using the

new mobile handset.  The complainant approached the Authorized service dealer and handed over the mobile handset, hoping that the same would be returned to her on the same day or the very next day.  But the 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that it would at least take three weeks to repair and return the phone.  The 2^nd opposite party assured that the said mobile handset will be repaired and given back within three weeks.   The 2^nd opposite party failed to live up to its assurance and had slept over the same.  The above mobile handset was not redelivered within the stipulated time.   The complainant received the very same  mobile handset only after thirty long days, after 10 days. Which was again found not function properly within ten days.  Despite of several demands, through phone,  and sent an email dated 27.12.2013  the opposite parties have not replaced the faulty new handset mobile phone nor they have repaired the faulty said handset mobile.    The said  the act of the opposite parties  are amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and damages to the complainant.    Hence the complaint. 

 

2.       Complainant has filed her Proof affidavit and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked on the side of the complainant.

3.       Even after receipt of the notice, the  opposite parties  did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version on their behalf.   Hence the  opposite parties were set exparte on 16.12.2014.

4.     Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5  filed by the complainant  and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant’s counsel.  

5.     The complainant has stated that she has purchased a compliant mentioned mobile handset i.e. Karbonn Smart phone in Model No.A4, on 25.9.2013 from the 3^rd opposite party as per the invoice Ex.A1 for Rs.4200/-.  The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer and the 2^nd opposite party is the Authorized Service Centre, when the complainant realized that the said Mobile was not properly functioning due to enormous technical problem with regard to the touch screen malfunctioning, hanging of software etc. within a week from the date of purchase, on the direction of the 3^rd opposite party, the complainant had handed over the Mobile to the 2^nd opposite party for repair and after 30 days of long period, the complainant got back the said Mobile after repair from the 2^nd opposite party.  However within ten days again the said Mobile was not properly functioning and the same technical problem happened as earlier, with the advice of the 3^rd opposite party, the complainant once again handed over the said Mobile to the 2^nd opposite party for repair on 17.12.2013.  The job card Ex.A2 issued by 2^nd opposite party for receipt of the said Mobile from the complainant for repair.  

6.     Though the 2^nd opposite party  has assured to return the Mobile after repair within three days despite of several reminders and email communications Ex.A3  made by the complainant to the opposite parties the said Mobile was neither repaired nor the opposite parties have replaced the said Mobile by new one.  The complainant has also issued legal notice to the opposite parties 1 & 2, dated 11.2.2014.   The copy of the said notice has been filed as Ex.A4.  The complainant has also given another legal notice dated 9.4.2014 to the opposite parties 1 to 3.  The copy of the same is filed as Ex.A5.   Though the said legal notice given by the complainant Ex.A4 & Ex.A5 were received by the opposite parties, the opposite parties neither replied nor complied the demand made by the complainant in the said notice.   As such the complainant has stated that the opposites parties have committed deficiency of service and the same has caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant is acceptable.   As such the opposite parties 1 to 3 are being manufacturer the authorized service centre and dealer of the said Mobile, they are jointly and severally liable to refund the cost of the said Mobile or to replace the same by giving new Mobile in a similar model for the claim value and to pay compensation to the complainant is acceptable.  The opposite parties are also remained exparte and there is no contrary evidence on the side of the opposite parties. 

7.     Therefore we are of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of  Rs.4200/- being the cost of the mobile or to replace the same by giving new Mobile in a similar model for equivalent value and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation  and also to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant

            In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.   The opposite parties are jointly and severally  directed to refund a sum of  Rs.4200/- (Rupees Four thousand and two hundred only) or to replace the same by giving new Mobile in a similar model for equivalent value and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation  and also to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the compensation amount of (Rs.10,000/) shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order  passed till the date of realization. 

Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 14^th    day of October   2015.

 

MEMBER-II                                                                       PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents :

Ex.A1- 25.9.2013    - Copy  of Invoice.

Ex.A2- 17.12.2013 – Copy of Job card.

Ex.A3- 27.12.2013 - Copy of reminder issued by complainant to

                               1^st  opposite party.

Ex.A4- 11.2.2014    - Copy of reminder notice with acknowledgment sent

                               By the complainant to the opposite parties.

Ex.A5- 9.4.2004     - Copy of Notice with Ack. Receipt.

 

Opposite parties’ side  documents: -              .. Nil ..  (exparte)

 

MEMBER-II                                                                       PRESIDENT.