Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/370/2015

M/s.Uma Vijayan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Sivari Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.A.Vija Shankar

25 Apr 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   11.09.2015

                                                                        Date of Order :   25.04.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                        : PRESIDENT            

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

                

C.C.NO.370/2015

TUESDAY THIS  25^TH  DAY OF APRIL 2017

 

Uma Vijayan,

W/o. Vijayan,

D4, 153, AWHO Parameswaran Vihar,

No.67, Arcot Road,

Saligramam,

Chennai 600 091.                                              ..Complainant

 

                                              ..Vs..

M/s. Srivari Enterprises,

Rep. by its Manager,

Door No.5, Venkatanarayana Road,

T.Nagar,

Chennai 600 017.                                              ..Opposite party.

 

For the Complainants                 :    M/s. A.Vijaya Sankar & another        

For the opposite party                 :    Exparte.

 

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

 This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards making good of the loss of the imported mobile instrument and also to pay a  sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and hardship and also to pay Rs.20,000/- as cost of the complaint.

 

1. The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

     The complainant deposited an imported Motorolla Mobile phone (model MB 860) on 10.11.2014 to the opposite party for repair of country lock which was received by them and issued a service job sheet vide No.862 dated 10.11.2014.   The instrument bears an IMEI No.353648045759304.   The nature of the complaint was that the instrument had got  locked which had to be undone to make the instrument useable.

2.     The complainant had been enquiring the status of repair of the instrument to the opposite party at frequent intervals but they  stated that the process of unlocking could not be done at their place since it involves expertise and it has to be sent to another place and it is awaited.   The complainant was waiting for a reasonable time but the reasons put-forth by the opposite party were untenable.   Having run out of patience the complainant asked the opposite party to return the instrument as it was.   The opposite party blatantly stated that the instrument was lost and unilaterally offered a pittance of a compensation of Rs.2,500/- instead of the imported mobile.   But the complainant was not ready for any monetary compensation and she wanted the mobile phone back.  During April 2015 the complainant visited the opposite party and the opposite party stated that they would try utmost to find out the instrument within three days  after five months.  

3.     On 9.5.2015 the complainant visited the opposite party place of business to seek the return of the mobile phone.   The opposite party’s staff stated that they found the missing instrument and she could take  delivery of the same.   The instrument was very old and used one and carrying a different IMEI number which was not matching with the one mentioned in the job sheet.   

4.     All these happenings had put the complainant to lot of mental agony in addition to the physical stress of visiting the shop for more than five occasions besides monetary loss.   The opposite party attempted to cheat the complainant with another old instrument and committed unfair trade practice with malafide intention.  Hence he issued legal notice to the opposite party dated 20.5.2015 which was received by them but failed to send any reply.  Therefore the above complaint is filed.

5.     Inspite of receipt of notice the opposite party did not appear before this forum and therefore they were set exparte.

6.     Though the opposite party remained expate this  Forum wants to dispose this compliant fully on merits with available materials before this forum. 

7.     In such circumstances,  in order to prove the allegation made in the complaint the proof affidavit is filed by the complainant as her evidence, and also Ex.A1 to  Ex.A3   are marked. 

 

8.      At this juncture the point for consideration before this Forum is:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite  party as alleged in the complaint?.

 

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled for?

 

9.  POINT No. :1

          It is seen from the facts of the case that the complainant handed over an imported Motorolla Mobile phone (model MB 860) on 10.11.2014 to the opposite party for repair of country lock which was received by them and they issued a service job sheet vide No.862 dated 10.11.2014.   Ex.A1 i.e. the service job sheet issued by the opposite party proves the same.   

10.    The grievance of the complainant is that even though the complainant visited the business place of the opposite party at frequent intervals the opposite party failed to repair the mobile phone even after five months but simply stated that the process of unlocking could not be done at their place and it has been sent to another repairer and later blatantly stated that the instrument was lost and offered a mere compensation of Rs.2500/- which was refused by the complainant.  Further the staff of the opposite party handed over an old and used mobile phone of the same model purported to be the one given by her for repairs.   The said mobile phone was carrying a different IMEI number and the complainant refused to receive the same and they also failed to hand over the original mobile phone given for repair till date.  Therefore the complainant contended that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service and also unfair practice with malafide intention due to which she suffered mental stress as well as monetary loss.   Therefore she is entitled for compensation for loss of the mobile as well as towards mental agony.  

11.    The complainant had established through Ex.A1 that she handed over the compliant mentioned mobile phone for repair to the opposite party.  It is also seen from the evidence of the complainant that the complainant visited the opposite party several time and enquired about the repair of the mobile.   But the opposite party stated some lame excuses and also stated that the mobile phone was lost and offered a meager compensation amount of Rs.2500/- for the loss of mobile, since the complainant refused to receive the amount at one time they handed over an old and used mobile phone of the same model as though it was the one given by the complainant.   But the complainant came to know that the EMI number of the said mobile was different from the one mentioned in the job sheet and she refused to receive the mobile and demanded to handover her imported mobile.   But the opposite party failed to hand over the mobile phone.  

12.    Moreover it is also seen from Ex.A2 that the complainant had sent legal notice to the opposite party which was received and acknowledged by them but failed to send any reply nor handed over her mobile phone.

13.    The complainant also contended that at one point of time the opposite party had agreed to pay compensation to the complainant for the loss of mobile phone Therefore it clearly reveals that the opposite party had lost the mobile phone given for repair by the complainant.   As such the opposite party is liable to compensate for the loss as well as mental agony caused to her.        

 

14.    Further the complainant had also contended that the act of the opposite party had caused her mental and physical stress as well as monetary loss.  

15.    It is seen that the opposite party  never took any effort to return the mobile phone to the complainant till date.   Therefore the act of the opposite party shows their irresponsible nature and negligence.   As such the contention of the complainant that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service is acceptable.   Moreover the opposite party had not appeared before this forum to rebut the contentions of the complainant.

 

16.    However the complainant had claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of the imported mobile phone, and also for a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, hardship and loss suffered by her.  since the complainant had not produced the purchase bill of the mobile phone this forum is unable to assess the rate of the complaint mentioned mobile phone  as well as  the date of purchase.   Therefore the claim of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of the mobile is not sustainable and cannot be granted.   

 

17.    Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case,  this forum is of the considered view that  the opposite party had committed deficiency in service due to which the complainant had suffered mental agony and monetary loss.   Thus the point no.1 is answered accordingly. 

 

18.    POINT No.2.

As per decision arrived in point No.1 the complainant is entitled for   a sum of Rs.10000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint. The compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant  however considering the facts and circumstances of the case he entitled for just and reasonable compensation.  Thus point-2 is also answered accordingly.

         In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly the opposite party is  directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only)  towards compensation due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  as cost of the complaint to the complainant.

         The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said mounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a till the date of payment.

              Dictated by the Member-I to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  25^th   day  of  April  2017.

 

MEMBER-I                                                                       PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-  20.5.2015 - Copy of the legal notice.

Ex.A2-         -       - Copy of Ack. Card.

Ex.A3-         -       - Copy of Service Job Sheet.

 

Opposite parties’ side documents:   .. Nil.

 

MEMBER-I                                                                    PRESIDENT.