Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/07/2015

Mr.A.S.Santhanam,Advocate Madras, Senior Level, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Poorvika Mobiles Pvt, Ltd.,Rep by its Managing Director, - Opp.Party(s)

Party In Person

03 Nov 2016

ORDER

 

                                                             Complaint presented on :  08.12.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on  :  03.11.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE 03^rd  DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.07/2015

 

Mr.A.S.Santhanam,

Advocate, Madras, Senior Level,

No.10. Bharathi Nagar,

1^st Street, Madhuravoyal, Madras – 95.

 

                                                                                               ..... Complainant

..Vs..

	1.Poorvika Mobiles Private Ltd., Rep., by its M.D., No.30, Arcot Road, Opposite to Meenakshi College, Kodambakkam, Chennai -24.   2.P.M.W cares, Rep. by its Manager, No.8/2,  First Floor, Bharathi Nagar,   T.Nagar, Madras – 17.
	.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  07.01.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in person

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party                       : M/s.S.Muthuselvan

Counsel for 2nd opposite party                  : Ex - parte

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant purchased a Karbonn Mobile Phone at the 1^st Opposite Party outlet at Virugambakkam on 09.11.2013 for a consideration of Rs.3,700/- and to safe Card display of the cell phone he was charged another sum of Rs.300/-. On reaching home he started using the phone, it was found that the voice is very feeble and unbearable. The very next day the Complainant went to the Virugambakkm branch informed the defect in the product. One of the sellers received mobile from him and did something and returned the mobile stating that the defect was made good. Again on reaching home it was found by the Complainant that the said defect was not made good. After, a period of 6 months the said phone was not charged. On 20.08.2014 the Complainant went to the 2^nd Opposite Party service centre and received the receipt and returned home. The 2^nd Opposite Party did not hand over the repaired mobile to the Complainant. On 09.09.2014 the Complainant went to the 2^nd Opposite Party he was informed that the mobile was not repaired. After waiting for some time the mobile was handed over to the Complainant and however the same was not working properly. However the employee of the 2^nd Opposite Party told the Complainant that if new battery of Rs.350/- is changed, it will work. The actual cost of battery is only Rs.150/-   Hence the Complainant not inclined to change the battery. Then he issued legal notice dated 25.10.2014 for the deficiency committed by the Opposite Parties and thereafter filed the Complaint for compensation with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          On 09.11.2013 when the Complainant purchased the mobile it was working in good condition. The 1^st Opposite Party handed over all the accessories along with mobile phone and issued cash invoice receipt which itself is warranty receipt, as no separate warranty card is issued in respect of the particular mobile. The extra amount paid was only to safe guard the display of mobile phone as decided by the Complainant. There is no separate warranty card issued for the particular model. The Complainant was fully satisfied of the mobile phone handed over to him. Such being the case the question of non  functioning of the mobile phone does not arise at all. The Complainant never approached the Opposite Parties regarding the nonfunctioning of the mobile phone the averments are totally false. The Complaint came in person with the mobile phone complaining certain defects only after 10 months. The second Opposite Party after examining the said mobile found out in moisture condition which goes to prove that it must have been dipped or dropped in water. It is to be stated that the mobile phone is not a water proof unit and therefore the warranty does not cover for the moisture condition of the above said mobile phone. The Opposite Party therefore tried its best to rectify the mobile phone to the extent possible and therefore this Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

3. Though the 2^nd Opposite Party received notice, he did not appear on 27.08.2015 and the 2^nd Opposite Party called absent and set Ex-parte.

         

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

5. POINT NO:1

          The Complainant purchased a karbon- A 51  mobile from the 1^st Opposite Party’s mobile outlet at Virugambakkam on 09.11.2013 under Ex.A1 invoice, delivery chalan for a valuable consideration of Rs.3,700/-. The Complainant after reaching home, he started to use the mobile phone and he heard  that the voice from the other end was very feeble and un hearable. Next day, the Complainant went to the seller and told him about the defect and the seller received the mobile from him and run inside the shop room and came out and handed over the mobile saying that he had rectified the defect. However the mobile again it was found that the specific defect was not made good. After a period of 6 months, the mobile could not be charged and hence the same did not function fully. The Complainant immediately contacted Virugambakkm branch and who in turn directed to contact the 2^nd Opposite Party and accordingly the Complainant went to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 20.08.2014 and told the defects in the mobile that he is unable to hear the voice and the mobile did not get charged and handed over the mobile to him. The 2^nd Opposite Party delivered the mobile on 09.09.2014 under Ex.A2 receipt issued by him.

          6. As per Ex.A2, the 2^nd Opposite Party who is the authorized service provider for the karbonn mobiles and   it  has been stated in  the Ex.A2 that the  warranty status is available and the reported problem was  receiver and charging problem. Therefore the defects alleged by the Complainant has been admitted by the Opposite Parties and proved by the Complainant under Ex.A2 receipt issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party.  Even in Ex.A2 receipt nowhere stated by the service provider that the problems have been rectified. However when the Complainant started to use the product, the same problems continued and that proves that the 2^nd Opposite Party also has not rectified the products. Since the product could not be used by the Complainant as the same is not hearable and not charging and the 1^st Opposite Party has not rectified the problem in the first instance and the 2^nd Opposite Party also not rectified the problem under Ex.A2 receipt we hold that the Opposite Parties have committed Deficiency in Service in providing service to the Complainant product.

7. POINT NO :2

          The Complainant prayed to replace the defective Karbonn mobile or refund the cost of the product. The Complainant purchased the product under Ex.A1 for a sum of Rs.3,700/- and therefore it would be appropriate to order to refund the cost of the product of Rs.3,700/-. The Opposite Parties failed to rectify the product proves their negligent act and thereby caused mental agony to the Complainant is acceptable and therefore it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation is reasonable. Though the Complainant claimed compensation for a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- and for the same there is no basis. Further the Complainant can be awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly or severally are ordered to refund a sum of Rs.3,700/- (Rupees three  thousand and seven hundred only) towards the cost of the product to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

          The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within 6 months from the date of receipt of  the copy of this order failing which  the above said amount shall carry   9% interest  till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 3^rd   day of November 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated  09.11.2013                         The cash Bill & Receipt for purchase of the

                                                           Cellular Phone from Opposite Party 1,

                                                           Virugambakkam Branch, in Sri No.009270

 

Ex.A2 dated 20.08.2014                           Service centre Receipt by the Opposite Party

                                                            2 to the Complainant

 

Ex.A3 dated 25.10.2014                           Legal Notice by the Complainant to the

                                                            Opposite Parties 1 & 2 with the postal receipt

                                                            for RPA/D

 

Ex.A4 dated 07.11.2014                           The A/d Card from the Opposite Party 1

                                                            returned to the Complainant 

 

Ex.A5 dated NIL                             Warranty card and service centre List

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT