This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 15-2-2008 in the presence of Sri. K.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for Complainant , and of Smt.P.Padmavathi, Advocate for the opposite party No-1 and opposite party No-2 served and called absent ; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(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 nokia 6600 Model cell phone vide I.M.E.I No. 357952/00/231680/1 on 13-2-2006 for Rs.9,300/- from the opposite party No-1, who is the dealer of the opposite party No-2 with one year warranty. After two months of purchase, the cell phone started giving troubles and not working properly, the display screen did not display anything and the complainant approached the opposite party No-1 and handed over the cell phone to him. The opposite party No-1 sent the said cell phone to the opposite party No-2 for rectification of defects, since that the complainant made many rounds to the opposite party No-1 and the opposite party No-1 postponed to return the cell phone as such the complainant approached the opposite party No-2 on 29-1-2007 as per the instructions of the opposite party No-1. The opposite party No-2 promised to repair the cell phone, but he failed to do so, as such the complainant again approached the opposite party No-2 along with the opposite party No-1 and the opposite party No-2 assured that it will be returned back after repairs and given a same model stand by piece and also assured that if the complainant’s cell phone was not repaired, he will replaced the old one with new piece and gave a delivery date as 9-2-2007 accordingly the complainant approached the opposite party No-2 on 24-2-2007 but the opposite party No-2 failed to return back and also refused to replace the defective cell phone and the complainant suffered mentally and physically due to the negligent acts of the opposite parties as such the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 3-1-2007 and demanded to replace the said cell phone, but the opposite parties did not responded. The complainant further stated that the negligent acts of the opposite parties are amounts to deficiency of service and as such the complainant approached the Forum and prayed to direct the opposite parties to give new cell phone in the place of defective cell phone or to refund it’s cost of Rs. 9,300/- and Rs.25,000/- towards damages and costs.
3. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed (i) original purchase bill, dt.13-2-2006 for Rs.9,300/- issued by opposite party No.1, (ii) Xerox copy of legal notice, dt.3-1-2007, (iii) Xerox copy of service job sheet, dated 29-1-2007 issued by the opposite party No.2.
4. After receipt of notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared through their counsel and filed counter by denying the allegations made in the complaint and the opposite party No.2 neither appeared nor filed any counter.
5. As per the counter of the opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.1 denied the purchase of cell phone from the shop of opposite party No.1 and stated that he is neither a proprietor nor a dealer of opposite party No.2 and also stated that he was worked as a clerk at some time in the shop of opposite party No.1 and as such there is no possibility to handed over the cell phone to him for repairs. The opposite party No.1 further denied that he was sent the cell phone to the opposite party No.2 for repairs, and they never instructed the complainant to approach the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 also denied that the complainant and opposite party No. 1 handed over the Cell Phone to the opposite party No.2 on 29-01-2007 and also stated that the opposite party No.2 did not gave any assurance to the complainant to return the same piece after repairs and also contended that the opposite party No.1 is not a necessary party to the proceedings. As such prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. In support of the averments of the complaint, the complainant filed chief examination affidavit. Both the parties filed written arguments.
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 as prayed or not?
P O I N T:
8. As seen from the averments of the complaint, the complainant purchased Nokia 6600 model cell phone from the shop of opposite party No.1, at the time of purchase the opposite parties had given one year warranty on the said cell phone, after two months the screen of the cell phone was not displayed and the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and handed over the cell phone to the opposite party No.1 for repairs. But, the opposite party No.1 did not rectify the problem of the cell phone and did not return the cell phone to the complainant and on 29-1-2007 the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 along with the opposite party No.1 and handed over the cell phone to the opposite party No.2 for rectification of the problem and since that the opposite party No.2 did not rectify the problem and did not return the cell phone to the complainant and as such the complainant approached the Forum for redressal. On the other hand, the opposite party No.1, from whose shop the cell phone was purchased denied the allegations of the complainant and stated that he was neither the proprietor of the shop nor the dealer to the opposite party No.2 and also stated that he worked as a clerk in the shop for some time and as such it cannot be said that there is a liability on the part of the opposite party No.1 and prayed to dismiss the complaint. As seen from the above facts and material placed before the Forum, it is clear that the opposite party No.1 sold the said cell phone to the complainant on 13-2-2006 for Rs.9,300/- with one year warranty and issued the bill endorsed by Sri.P.Radha Krishna on behalf of opposite party no.1 and it clearly speaks that said P.Radha Krishna, who is representing the opposite party No.1 was the authorized signatory of the bill issued by opposite party No.1 in this regard ,and as per the service job sheet dated 29-1-2007, which was issued by the opposite party No.2, it was mentioned by the opposite party No.2 in the remarks column that the complainant’s cell was in dead condition and also mentioned the delivery date of the cell phone as 9-2-2007. As per the purchase bill, dated 13-2-2006 the warranty period is one year i.e. 13-2-2006 to 13-2-2007 and it seems that before expiry of the warranty period the cell phone of the complainant started giving troubles, as such the opposite parties are liable to rectify the defects, which aroused within the warranty period, given by the opposite parties. More over in the present case on hand, the opposite parties did not choose to rectify the defects in the cell phone and as such we feel that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, in the light of above discussion the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency of service on their part, accordingly the point is answered in favour of the complainant.
9. In the result, the C.C. is allowed in part and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to replace the defective Nokia 6600 model cell phone with new piece or to refund the amount of Rs.9,300/- and also directed to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 15th day of February, 2008.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Nil -
President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam
