This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 6-10-2008 in the presence of Sri.B.Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for Complainant, and of Sri.H.Sree Ram Rao, Advocate for the opposite party ; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;
2. The complainant Purchased TATA Indicom Mobile Phone on 21-12-2005 from opposite party, who is the dealer of TATA Indicom true paid shop, by believing the advises of the opposite party the complainant paid Rs.2,499/- and the opposite party allotted 9247896320 number. After two months of the date of purchase the cell phone started giving troubles, accordingly the complainant approached the opposite party on 11-10-2006 for rectification of defects and handed over the mobile phone to the opposite party and the opposite party promised to rectify the defects and return the same on next day. Instead of rectifying the defects, the opposite party postponed the matter on pretext or other. The complainant further stated that he made many rounds to the opposite party with a request to rectify the problem or replace the defective one. The opposite party did not respond properly and vexed with the attitude of the opposite party the complainant issued legal notice on 21-11-2006 with a request to replace the defective cell phone, and in turn the opposite party issued reply notice on 5-12-2006 and advised to approach service centre at Vijayawada. The complainant also alleges that there is a gross negligence on the part of opposite party and approached the Forum for redressal and prayed to direct the opposite party to replace the defective cell phone and costs.
3. Along with the complaint the complainant filed affidavit and also filed (i) original purchase bill, dated 21-12-2005 for Rs.2,499/-, issued by the opposite party (ii) Warranty card, dated 21-12-2005 (iii) Service receipt on a white paper, dated 11-10-2006(iv)Legal notice, dated 22-11-2006 (v) reply notice, dated 5-12-2006.
4. After receipt of notice, the opposite party appeared through it’s counsel and filed counter by denying the allegations made in the complaint.
5. As per counter the opposite party admitted the purchase of Mobile Handset on 21-12-2005 and handed over the same in the shop of opposite party on 11-10-2006 for repairs and denied the other allegations. The opposite party further contended that they informed the complainant that the opposite party has no service center at Khammam as such the mobile handset will be sent to the service center at Vijayawada and accordingly the mobile handset was sent to the service center, Vijayawada only on request of the complainant and in turn The Service Center, Vijayawada addressed a letter to the opposite party on 30-10-2006, stating that the Mobile Handset is water lodged and it will not cover under the conditions of warranty. The opposite party also contended that the complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party only, who is the dealer of TATA Tele Services Ltd., NEW DELHI, and the TATA Tele Services Ltd., NEW DELHI, is not made as a party to the proceedings, who is responsible for replacement or repair of the handset, as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. The complainant filed written arguments with the same averments as mentioned in the complaint.
7. In view of the above submissions made by both the parties now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief or not?
8. As seen from the above averments of complaint and counter, the complainant purchased TATA INDICOM MOBILE PHONE on 21-12-2005 from the opposite party and after two months of it’s purchase, the Mobile Phone was not working properly and the complainant approached the opposite party for repairs and handed over the Mobile Handset to the opposite party on 11-10-2006 but the opposite party failed to rectify the defects in the cell phone as such the complainant made many requests to the opposite party but the efforts of the complainant became in vain as such the complainant approached the Forum for redressal. On the other hand the opposite party denied the allegation that the Mobile Handset started giving troubles after two months of it’s purchase and contended that the complainant approached them for repairs and they sent the Mobile Handset to the Service Center, Vijayawada, as they have no Service Center at Khammam. The Service Center, Vijayawada addressed a letter dated 30-10-2006 to the opposite party, stating that the Mobile Handset is water lodged( i.e., cannot power on condition) and it will not cover under the conditions of warranty but in support of their contentions the opposite party failed to file any material and did not file letter dated 30-10-2006, addressed by the Service Center, Vijayawada and moreover as per warranty card dated 21-12-2005, the warranty period is 12 months from date of purchase on Mobile Phone and it’s accessories and the warranty card also speaks that the defective material will be rectified free of cost within it’s warranty and if the Mobile Handset started giving troubles to the buyer, the defective peace has to be brought to the dealer/authorized Service Center along with warranty card/Sales receipt. In the light of above discussion the warranty card clearly speaks, it is the duty of the opposite party to rectify the defects of the cell phone to avoid inconvenience to the complainant, as such the point is safely concluded in favour of the complainant.
9. In the result, the C.C. is allowed and the opposite party is directed to replace the defective cell phone with new one and also directed to pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant with in one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Typed to dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 13th day of October, 2008.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam
