BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 17th day of March, 2006
C.D.No.101/2005
B.Umamaeswar Redyy,M.E.,
H.No.46-26-B-21, Ashok Nagar,Kurnool - 518005. Ph:08518-251425,9440655869
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. Propritor, M/s Anwar Times,
Shop No.7 and 8, Abdullakhan Estate, Opp.Z.P.Office, Kurnool-1.
2. M/s BENQ Asia Pacific Corp, JIHU RD, Taiwan
Rep.by importer Managing Director, M/s First Mobile India Pvt. Ltd.,349, W E highway, Andhreri (E) Mumbai-69.
. . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 16.3.2006 for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Shivajirao, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri A.V.Subramanyam, Advocate, Kurnool opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 as set exparte, and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Hon’ble Member)
1. This Consumer Dispute of the complainant is filed under Section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.4,300/- with 18% interest from the date of purchase, Rs.10,000/- as compensation, Rs.1,000/- as costs and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant on 4-11-2004 purchased a handset of BenQ made for Rs.4,300/- from opposite party No.1 and on 15-4-2005 the said set was not responding to the key pad and the same was handed over to opposite party No.1 for its repairs and opposite party No.1 assured the defects will be rectified and will be returned by evening of the same day. And in the evening when approached the opposite party No.1 ask the complainant to come the next day as repairs were not yet completed. On 17-5-2006 when the complainant approached opposite party No.1 he is stated that repairing the set at show room is not possible and asked the complainant to approach the company service centre to rectify the defects, but as the defects aroused within a warranty period it is a responsibility of opposite party No.1 to rectify the defects and asked for a specific date when the hand set will be returned and opposite party No.1 responded carelessly without specifying any date. As the handset was not returned after repairs within five days the complainant purchased another set and till date the said set was not returned. Hence, constrained the complainant to file this complaint before the Forum for redressal.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents. Viz (1) Cash bill dated 4-11-2004 issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant for Rs.4,300/- and (2) Repair receipt issued by opposite party No.1 dated 15-4-2004, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the complainant also relied on the third party affidavit of Maharsha Lal. The complainant caused interrogatories to the opposite party No.1 and complainant and third party suitabely replied to the interrogatories caused by opposite party No.1 and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 and A2 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.2 remind absent throughout the case proceedings and opposite party No.1 appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filing written version.
5. The written version of opposite party No.1 admits the complainant purchased a handset of BenQ-630 model for Rs.4,300/- on 4-11-2004 and the said handset was handed over to opposite party No.1 on 15-4-2005 with a complaint of key pad trouble. The handset was covered under a warranty period. As it was covered under a warranty the dealer is not authorised to manipulate the said handset, so the set has to be sent to the company for repairs of defects with Xerox copy of warranty card, accordingly it was sent to the company. After one week the complainant approached and demanded for return of set or to replace it with a new set and the opposite party replied that as the set was not returned from the company the opposite party requested the complainant to wait for another one week. There after the complainant neither approached the opposite party No.1 nor made any communication. After receiving the handset from the company the opposite party No.1 could not contact the complainant as his address or contact number was not available with them and lastly submits that he is only a dealer and not responsible for defective pieces, he is responsible only to the services and opposite party No.1 provided his best services to the complainant and seeks for the dismissal of complaint.
6. The opposite party in support of their case relied on the following document viz (1) BenQ cell phone packed in the cover, besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 in reiteration of its written version and the above document is marked as Ex.B1 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party also relied on the third party affidavit of Shaik Abdul Khadar Zilani and deposition of RW-1 G.Suresh and marked Ex.X1 Service Stock Register for ONIDA products entry by name Mr. Sekar at serial No.2365 and Ex.X2 receipt for customer articles No.316599 dated 20-4-2005. The opposite party caused interrogatories to the complainant and third party and the opposite party and the third party suitabely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging the deficiency of service on opposite parties:?
8. It is a simple case of the complainant alleging defect in the BenQ model handset purchased by him for Rs.4,300/- vide the Ex.A1 from opposite party No.1. As the said set developed defects in the key pad the same was handed over to opposite party No.1 vide Ex.A2 to rectify the defects, but the opposite party even after several approaches for five days could not rectify the defects in the said handset, hence the complainant seeks for payment of cost of handset as he purchased another handset. But as against to it the written version of opposite party No.2 alleges that the handset of the complainant developed defects during warranty period and any defects aroused during the warranty period should be rectified by the company only as per terms and conditions of warranty and accordingly the opposite party No.1 sent the said set to the company service centre on 20-4-2005 for attending its repairs and the said set after attending its repairs was returned by the company on 3-5-2005. After receiving the said set from the company the complainant failed to approach the opposite party No.1 and as there is no contact number with opposite party No.1 he could not handed over the said set to the complainant.
9. The said set was deposited in the Forum after attending its due repairs along with written version on 30-9-2005 and on demonstrating the said set on 8-3-2006 the same was found satisfactorily functioning and if at all there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties it is for the delayed period for attending its repairs constraining the complainant to resort to the Forum for remedy. The Ex.A2 is the repair receipt dated 15-4-2005 issued by opposite party No.1 for taking the complainant’s set for repairs and as per the Ex.X1 the said set was handed over to opposite party No.1 after attending its repairs on 3-5-2005. Hence, from the above what appears is that the said set was ready after its repairs by 3-5-2005 to return to the complainant. Hence, there is a delay of about 20 days.
10. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.500/- will meet the said delayed conduct of the opposite party towards the complainant in attending the necessary repairs of the said set. As the condition of the said set after its due repairs was found satisfactorily functioning the complainant is directed to obtain it from Forum.
11. Consequently, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a compensation of Rs.500/- to the complainant for mental agony at the delayed attending the repairs of the said set along with Rs.500/- as costs within the month of receipt of this order, and the complainant is directed to obtain the repaired set from the Forum on expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us, in the Open Forum, on this the 17th day of March, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties:
RW-1 G.Suresh
Exhibits marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Cash bill dated 4-11-2004 issued by opposite party No.1 to the
complainant for Rs.4,300/-
Ex.A2 Repair receipt issued by opposite party No.1 dated 15-4-2004
Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
ExB1 BenQ cell phone packed in the cover.
Exhibits marked by the Forum:
Ex.X1 Service Stock Register for ONIDA products entry by name Mr. Sekar at serial No.2365
Ex.X2 Receipt for customer articles No.316599 dated 20-4-2005
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri. M.Shivajirao, Advocate, Kurnool
2. Sri. A.V.Subramanyam, Advocate, Kurnool
3. M/s BENQ Asia Pacific Corp, JIHU RD, Taiwan, Rep.by importer:Managing
Director, M/s First Mobile India Pvt. Ltd., 349, W E highway, Andhreri (E)
Mumbai-69.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
