BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986), MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present: Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.,LL.B.,
P.G.D.C.P.L. FAC President/ Senior Member Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com.,
Lady Member
Friday, the 13th day of August, 2010
CC. No. 10 of 2010
Between:
V. Ravi S/o Mallesham,
Age: 33 years, Occ: Tailoring,
H.No. 2-6-58/3, Subash Road,
Sadasivapet, Medak District. ….. Complainant
And
New Perfect Mobile Store & Electrical,
M.M. complex, Shastri Road,
Sadasivapet, Medak District. .....Opposite party
This case came up for final hearing before us on 26.07.2010 in the presence of complainant in person and Sri. Mohd. Zulfikar Hussain, Advocate for opposite party, upon hearing the arguments of both sides, 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. Mekala Narsimha Reddy, Senior Member)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party to returned the new cell phone and compensation and cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
Brief facts of the case:
The complainant is originally resident of Sadasivapet Mandal Medak District. opposite party also resides same village. That on 15.02.2009 the complainant purchased the mobile set which is named Haier Company HC-C6000 Model, A1000006A166141 (Black) from the opposite party. The opposite party also issued a bill for a sum of Rs. 1,050/- at the time of purchase of mobile phone given the user manual the complainant has used the phone for five months in this consequence some repair is caused than the complainant has approached the opposite party. But he did not rectify the problems.
The opposite party used to sell the mobile to the consumer the complainant with a belief purchased the phone the opposite party did not take any action on the part of opposite party and knowingly. If the opposite party would have solved the problem the complainant would have saved from the litigation thus the complainant has faced lot of difficulties from consumers and suffered much mental pain and energy. Hence the complaint.
The opposite party resisted the claim of the complainant by filing a version to the following effect:
The complainant has created false and baseless allegations. In fact I am running the Mobile and Electrical shop in the name and style of New Perfect Mobile and Electrical Store at Sadasivapet town. I used to sell the mobiles and electrical items. The complainant has purchased HC- C6000 mobile on 15.02.2009 for Rs. 1050/- from opposite party. The piece was in good condition and there was no complaint in respect of the cell phone. The complainant never approached to me complaining any defect. The complainant might have filed this case only to extract money from opposite party and to cause loss to the opposite party. The opposite party running my business with all pre-cautions. There is good name in the market. In order to get down my reputation in the market this false and baseless complaint is filed.
The opposite party used to purchased the mobile cell phone items through a dealer by name GUNNALA SHIVA S/o Ramesh, Surya Agency, Shop No. 2-4-58, Lopali Kota, Sadasivapet town, Medak. The items are manufactured by HAIER Telecom Pvt. Ltd., 862, Udyog Vihar, Phase V, Gurgaon – 122 016, Haryana, India. As such the dealer and the manufacturer are the necessary parties to the case; hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. That there is no deficiency of service. The complainant never approached me with any defect in the item. The complainant is also resident in the same town near from opposite party and he used to move frequently in from of my shop, but he never complained. If really the item gave any defect, the complainant would have approached the opposite party and showed the defect, but he never complained, as such the complaint itself if bad and liable to be dismissed.
Exs.A1 and A2 are marked on behalf of the complainant. No documents filed by the opposite party. Complainant filed a memo to treat his evidence affidavit and written arguments. Evidence affidavit filed by the opposite party. Oral arguments of both sides heard. Perused the record.
Point for consideration whether the complaint is entitle for repair or replace of the mobile against the opposite party?
The contention of the complainant is that purchased a mobile phone from opposite party No. 1 the opposite party No. 1 given the warranty card for 1 year. Which was repaid within 6 months from the date of purchase the opposite party did not repair or replace the cell. The complainant has approached said course they could not done the same due to his adamant character the complainant has caused his business. In spite of non functioning of cell phone.
Another hand the opposite party alleged that the complainant has created false and baseless allegations,. In fact I am running the mobile and electronic shop at Sadasivapet town. The place was good condition there was no complaints. The complainant is never approached to me complaining any defects. The G. Shiva Kumar is dealer same was manufactured by Haier Telecom Pvt Ltd. Gurgaon. In this case dealer and manufacturer are the necessary parties. There is no deficiency of service on my part and has not violated any principle of law. The complaint itself is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. Even after filing the counter, the complainant has not taken any steps to bring on record. Hence I am not liable and the complainant is not entitled any relief to this case.
The complainant not made the company. As a party and defect was not mentioned in this complaint. Opposite party accepting the purchase of mobile phone but opposite party denied the allegation of the complainant that I am the only retailer dealer shop is situated at main road, Sadasivapet said allegation is not sustainable under Consumer Protection Act. As per Ex.A1 shows that opposite party issued the bill in there is no dealer name. Ex.A2 is the proof of the cell accessories the duly of the opposite party.
In the above circumstances of case opposite party refusing of rapid is deficiency of service the opposite party must have solve the problem of cell phone but opposite party does not take any steps for defects to notice to the dealer. The complainant is proved his contention against the opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be allowed with costs.
In the result the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party to repair or replace the handset and to pay Rs.1,000/- costs. The order shall be comply within one month from date of receipt of this order.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 13th day of August, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
FAC President/ Senior Member Lady Member
