Date of Complaint : 04.11.2015
Date of Order :21.04.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT : THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER – I
DR.T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.No. 445 / 2015
THIS THURSDAY 21ST DAY OF APRIL 2016
Mr. Burhanuddin Laila,
S/o. Yusuf Laila,
No.189/266 Linghi Chetty Street,
3rd Floor, Chennai 600 001. .. Complainant.
- Vs-
One Plus Service Centre – Chennai. Regenersis (India) Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, No.45, Montieth Road, No.4, Ceebros Centre, 3rd Floor, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. .. Opposite party. | | .. Opposite party. |
| | |
For the complainant : M/s. S.Q. Yusuf
For the opposite party : Exparte
ORDER
THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA, :: MEMBER-I
1. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.21,998/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as mental distress and mental agony to the complainant.
2. Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the opposite party did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version. Hence the opposite party was set exparte on 22.12.2015.
3. Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 filed by the complainant and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant’s counsel.
4. The complainant contended that he is an Engineering student and he purchased a mobile phone in the nature and style of “ONE PLUS ONE” Sandstone black mobile phone through Amazon on 15.5.2015 for a sum of Rs.21,998/-. But the complainant was shocked when he faced Auto Shut down problem within a month of his purchase. Hence he contacted the customer support of the company “ONE PLUS ONE who had instructed him to approach the opposite party. In view of the company’s words he approached the opposite party on 24.6.2015 and surrendered his mobile on the same day. After service he received the mobile on 30.6.2015. But still there was problem of Auto shutdown in the mobile even after service and even after the mother board was replaced. Hence on 2.7.2015 he surrendered the mobile to the opposite party and sought for replacement of the mobile from the opposite party as they were the sole representative of the company in India. On 4.7.2015 he received his mobile from the opposite party but still the problem existed. He also sent emails to the customer care of the manufacturing company and he was asked to raise the claim and claim was numbered as 13665. But they directed only to approach the authorized service center, since they have no registered company in India and the opposite party is the only representative of the manufacturing company in India. But since the problem in the mobile was not rectified in the mobile they had committed deficiency in service. He also sent legal notice to the opposite party which was received by them but failed to send any reply. As such the complainant filed the above complaint to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.21,998/- being the cost of the mobile as well as Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony along with cost of the complaint.
5. It is evidenced through Ex.A1 that the complainant had purchased the complaint mentioned “ONE PLUS ONE” Sandstone black mobile phone through Amazon.in on 15.5.2015 for a sum of Rs.21,998/-. The grievance of the complainant is that within one month from the date of purchase of the mobile there was a problem of Auto Shutdown and on the advice of the customer support of the company he surrendered the mobile to the opposite party who are the authorized service center on 24.6.2015. But the defect was not rectified, again on 2.7.2015 he surrendered the mobile for the same problem, but it was not rectified. Ex.A2 namely i.e. the Job sheet given by the opposite party reveals the problem as well as shows that the mobile is under warranty period. The email correspondence between the complainant and the opposite party customer care of the manufacturing company reveals that the mother board has been changed by the complainant within one month from the date of purchase and still the problem in the mobile existed even after the mobile being serviced twice. Hence the complainant sought for replacement of new mobile and his claim was also numbered as case id No.13665. Whereas the grievance of the complainant is not complied with, since the complaint mentioned mobile was manufactured in China. But the contention of the complainant that he could only contact the opposite party being the authorized service center as well as sole representative of the manufacturing company at the advice of the customer care support is acceptable. As such as a sole representative of the company the opposite party ought to have rendered proper service by duly repairing the said mobile at the full satisfaction of the complainant. Whereas the opposite party have not taken any effort to rectify the defect in the mobile though the mobile was under the warranty period. Moreover even after receipt of legal notice i.e. Ex.A4 the opposite party failed to comply the grievance of the complainant
6. The complainant also submitted in his written arguments the terms and conditions in relation to the warranty policy of the complaint mentioned mobile from the official website of “ONE PLUS ONE” company in which it is stated that for any repair and replacement of the service covered by warranty alternatively, they may replace the defective product entirely with a rebuilt reconditioned or new “ONE PLUS ONE” product. Whereas in this case it appears that as contended by the complainant the problem of Auto shutdown is due to defect in the mother board which is due to manufacturing defect. Hence the contention of the complainant that the opposite party had committed deficiency of service is acceptable.
7. The complainant also submitted in his written arguments that the opposite party is an agent of the manufacturer for which he cited Supreme Court Judgment
Syed Abdul Khader
..Vs..
Rami Reddy
(1979) 2 SCC 601
It is held that
The expression agency is used to connote the relation which exists where one person has an authority or capacity to create legal relations between a person occupying the position of principal and third parties” and further observed in words of Justice Desai, the relation of agency arises when one person called the agent has authority to act on behalf of another called the Principal and consents so to act. The Relationship has its genesis in a contract. Hence in this case, the opposite party is an agent not only by an express contract, but also by the conduct and situation of the parties, wherein the complainant was asked to approach the agent time and again with his grievance, hence the acts done by the agent binds the principal and there exists a relationship of Agency in this case. “
8. As discussed above we are of the considered opinion that the opposite party is liable to replace the complaint mentioned mobile with new mobile of the same model or refund a sum of Rs.21,998/- being the cost of the mobile since the mobile is covered under warranty within two months from the date of this order. Further the opposite party is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- as litigation charges to the complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are not inclined to grant any compensation.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to replace the complaint mentioned mobile with new mobile of the same model or to refund a sum of Rs.21,998/- (Rupees Twenty one thousand nine hundred and ninty eight only) being the cost of the mobile to the complainant within two months from the date of this order. Further the opposite party is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) as litigation charges to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order.
Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 21st day of April 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s Side documents :
Ex.A1- 15.5.2015 - Copy of Purchase Invoice.
Ex.A2- 30.6.2015 - Copy of Service report given by the opposite party.
Ex.A3- 11.7.2015 - Copy of Screen shots of series of emails exchanged between the
Parties.
Ex.A4- 28.8.2015 - Copy of legal notice sent to the opposite party.
Opposite party’s side documents: -
.. Nil .. (exparte)
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
