BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

Present:Sri P.V.Subrahmanyam, B.A.,B.L., PRESIDENT

   Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member 

  Sri G. Sreenivas Rao,M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR),

                                                           Male Member

Thursday, the 6^th  day of January,  2011

C.C. No. 57 of  2010

Between:

H. Ravindra S/o H. Balraj, aged 24 years,

Occ: Pvt. Employee R/o H.No. 3-3-150/2/J,

L.B. Nagar, Back side Govt. Hospital,

Sangareddy town, Medak Dist.                                                         …..Complainant

And

1. M/s Big C Mobiles Pvt.Ltd., through its Dealer

Beside Cell One Office, Sai Krupa Nagar,

Sangareddy town, Dist. Medak.

2. M/s Big C Mobiles Pvt., Ltd.,

Administrative Office,

Ozone Complex, Third Floor, Panjagutta,

Hyderabad – 500 082.                                                  ….Opposite parties

         This case came up for final hearing before us on 29.12.2010  in the presence of Sri Ch. Laxmi Narsimha Reddy, Advocate for complainant, and in the presence of Mr. S. Sunil Kumar Reddy representing on behalf of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2, upon hearing arguments of both sides heard, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Per Sri G. Sreenivas Rao, Male Member)

                   This complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony along with costs and to replace the mobile phone.

1.                The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a mobile phone of CELKON C9 model bearing IMEI No. 910500100078490 on 28.06.2010 for an amount of Rs.4,000/- from the opposite party No. 1 with a warranty period of one year. Within a month, the mobile phone started giving trouble and the display of the cell phone was broken automatically. A complaint has been made on 27.07.2010 and the opposite party No. 1 took away the mobile phone and advised the complainant to come back after 15 days, by issuing a worksheet. After 15-days time, the opposite party No. 1 did not return the mobile phone. Thereafter complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 several times but he did not respond and took the matter easily and the opposite party No. 1 said that opposite party No. 2 being the manufacture, is responsible for the defect in the mobile phone. Vexed with callous attitude of the opposite party No. 1, the complainant sent a legal notice on 04.09.2010, even then the opposite parties were not bothered to attend to the complainants’ problem, leaving no other option except to knock the doors of this forum for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with costs and replacement of mobile phone from the opposite parties.

2.                    The opposite party no. 1 submitted in his counter that he had received a complaint about the mobile phone of Celkon 9 model purchased by the complainant on 27.07.2010 and he issued job work sheet no. 3757 and requested the complainant to come after 15 days. He further submitted that the mobile phone was sent to celkon authorized service centre at Hyderabad for necessary repair. Whereas the authorized service centre informed that the display of the mobile was broken due to physical damage and as per the ‘limited local warranty’, the cost for the display will be charged and the service will be done free of cost. This information was given to the complainant. The complainant accepted the same, then the display of the mobile phone was replaced through invoice dated 14.09.2010 and Rs. 801/- was charged for new display. After that the opposite party requested the complainant to obtain the mobile phone, but he postponed his visit on one pretext or the other. So the opposite party contested strongly that there was no deficiency of service and he is not liable for compensation or any damages. Finally, he confirmed that the mobile phone is rectified and at any point of time, the complainant can come and collect it. He, therefore, requested the forum to dismiss this complaint with exemplary costs as this complaint was filed with malafide intention.

3.                  In support of the claim, the complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs. A1 to A8 documents, similarly the opposite party also filed evidence affidavit and the documents were marked as Exs. B1 and B2 along with rectified mobile phone(without battery, back cover and sim card) as Ex MO1.

4.                  Further, the complainant advanced oral arguments in addition to written arguments and the opposite party No. 1 filed written arguments and the same was adopted by opposite party No. 2 as his written argument also on request.

5.                 We have heard the arguments of the complainant and the opposite party at the time of hearing the case.

6.                  The point for consideration in this case is that whether any deficiency of service was caused to the complainant, if so, what relief?

i).               The complainant purchased a mobile phone of model : Celkon C9 for Rs. 4000/- from the opposite party No. 1 on 28.06.2010 and within a month the cell phone started giving trouble and the display was broken (no/dim display). The complainant reported to opposite party no. 1 on 27.07.2010 and the opposite party No. 1 took away the cell phone for repair by advising him to come back after 15 days. But the opposite party No. 1 did not return the cell phone for several weeks. Thus on 04.09.2010 a legal notice was sent to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and absolutely no response was seen from both the opposite parties nor repaired / replaced the cell phone. Finally, the case against the opposite parties was filed on 26.10.2010 before this forum for redressal.

ii).           From the above facts, it is clear that the opposite party No. 1 deliberately delayed in returning the cell phone either repaired (or) replaced immediately even though the cell phone was a brand new one and the trouble was noticed within one months time from the date of purchase.

iii).          Further the Ex.A3 which is the job work sheet no. 3757 dated 27.07.2010 issued to the complainant shows that the faulty cell phone was given to opposite party No. 1 by the complainant on this day. Added to it, that the document Ex.B1 produced by the opposite party No. 1 relates to the service job sheet shows the date of 12.09.2010 and similarly the document Ex.B2 of opposite party No. 1 relates to ‘invoice’ for the repair of cell phone dated 14.09.2010. Both these documents prove that the opposite party No. 1 caused unwanted delay to the complainants’ redressal initially made on 27.07.2010.

                  Hence the opposite parties have caused deficiency of service to the complainant and it is proved.

iv).             Secondly, from perusal of further evidence submitted by the complainant and opposite parties. It is observed that the complainant had reported to the opposite party No. 1 about the trouble in his new cell phone pertaining to display in the cell phone on 27.07.2010. This was admitted even by the opposite parties but the opposite parties insisted on the terms and conditions of the “limited local warranty” for which the cost for the display will be charged and the service will be done free of cost. Therefore, the complainant must pay Rs. 801/- charges for new Display.

v).       The Ex. MO1 (Mobile phone minus battery, sim card and back cover) submitted by the complainant shows that the glass cover or the display board of the cell phone is intact and from the perusal of Ex. B1 submitted by the opposite parties shows as ‘LCD broken’ against the reported fault and similarly against the warranty, mentioned as ‘N’ (implies ‘No’) which is contrary to the one year warranty period available to the complainant. And the same was admitted by opposite parties. This Ex. B1 has an impression of the seal without any address. Hence this document can be suspected as fabricated for the convenience of opposite parties.

vi).           Another Ex.B2 invoice dated 14.09.2010 submitted by the opposite parties shows ‘C9LCD’ under particulars column which leads to suspicious whether this invoice is related to the mobile model celkon C9 bearing No. IMEI 910500100078490 because this number is not printed in the invoice but scribbled by the opposite party at the bottom of the invoice. However this invoice does not have an official seal for authentication.

vii).            The opposite party No. 1 in his written arguments in page (2) under para 4 admitted that opposite party as importer of the handset and takes all reasonable care as they carryout proper quality control and testing before delivery into the market. It may be true that opposite parties might take enough care in this regard. However, the opposite parties cannot ignore the lapses and human error on the part of their employees and safety in transportation of goods from one place to the other. Added to it at the end of written arguments more specifically in page (4) under para 13, the opposite parties submits that he is ready and willing to handover the rectified mobile set to the complainant at any point of time. This he should have resolved at least before/after receiving the legal notice but ignored all this carelessly. Thus for all the inconvenience caused by the opposite parties, the complainant is therefore, entitled for compensation for mental agony.

                  So at the end the complaint is allowed with costs by this forum.

                  In the result the opposite parties are directed to replace the defective mobile cell phone with a new mobile set or in the alternative to refund its price of Rs.4,000/- with Rs. 1500/- as compensation and Rs. 1000/- towards costs.

                  The above order has to be complied within 30 days from the pronouncement of this order.

                   Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this  the 6^th  day of January, 2011.

          Sd/-                                             Sd/-                                Sd/-

     President                                   Lady Member                   Male Member

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                                            WITNESS EXAMINED

For Complainant:                                                          For Opposite parties:    -Nil-                                                                                -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant:                                                 For Opposite parties No. 1 &2:

                                                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                                        MALE MEMBER

Copy to

1)   The Complainant

2)   The Opposite parties

3)   Spare copy                               copy delivered to the Complainant/

Opp.Party On _________

                                                Dis.No.                 /2011, dt.     .01.2011.