Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/27/2017

I.Sekhar Babu, S/o Sowri Babu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance DX Mini, Rep. by its authorized signatory - Opp.Party(s)

G.Guru Prasad

31 Mar 2018

ORDER

         

 

                                                                                                Filing Date: 22-06-2017                                                                                                               Order Date: 31-03-2018

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                       Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

SATURDAY THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

 

C.C.No.27/2017

Between

 

I.Sekhar Babu, S/o. Sowri Babu,

Hindu, Aged about 33 years,

Residing at D.No. 20-3-5/3C,

Siva Jyothi Nagar,

Near Rathnam High School,

Tirupati, Chittoor District.                                                          … Complainant

 

And

 

1. Reliance DX Mini,

Rep. by its authorized Signatory,

H.No.12-3-217A, Tilak Road,

Tirupati.

 

2. M/s. ACEL MACRO FIX,

Rep. by its authorized Signatory,

D.No. 6-2-84/A2, 1^st Floor,

Opp. City Centre Complex,

Bhavani Nagar Circle, K.T.Road,

Tirupati.

 

3. YU Televentures Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its authorized Signatory,

Block No.A, Plot No.21/14,

Naraina Industrial Area,

Phase II Delhi South, West Delhi,

PIN: 110028.                                                                   … Opposite parties

 

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 16.03.2018 and upon perusing the complaint, written version, written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of             Sri. G.Guru Prasad, counsel for the complainant and opposite parties 1 to 3 are remained exparte having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, by the complainant for the following reliefs: 1) to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to replace the mobile with new set  or to refund the cost of mobile in a sum of Rs.5,199/-, 2) to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service and for causing mental agony to the complainant and 3) to award Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the litigation.

        2. The brief averments of the complaint are:   that the complainant, on 04.02.2017 purchased mobile phone model No.YU 5010 (Black and Silver) with IMEI No.91147605 9145441 for Rs.5,199/- from opposite party No.1 under cash bill along with one year warranty. That the said mobile worked for only one week then started giving troubles, and not functioning properly. The complainant reported the problem to opposite party No.1 on their advice he delivered the mobile cell to opposite party No.2 under Job Card dt: 18.02.2017 and reported the problem as 4204, 4203, 4201 i.e. no service, drop calls and no calls out. On that opposite party No.2  stated it sustained manufacturing defect and mobile parts have to be brought from the company for replacement of defective parts and advised to take delivery within 15 days to 20 days. But the mobile was delivered after 43 days to the complainant by opposite party No.2.

         The complainant further stated that unfortunately the problems were continued in mobile as such again he went to opposite party No.2 and reported that the problems were continued and asked to replace the mobile if not possible to repair. But the opposite party No.2 refused his request then he went to opposite party No.1 requesting him to replace the mobile with new one, for which opposite party No.1 also refused. Therefore there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 as such the complainant is entitled for replacement of the defective mobile with new one or to get back the cost of the defective mobile for which opposite parties 1 to 3 are liable. Since the opposite parties did not respond properly he got issued notices calling upon the opposite parties      1 to 3 jointly and severally to replace the defective mobile with new one or to refund the cost of the mobile. Though the notices were served, opposite parties 1 and 2 neither complied nor gave reply. Hence the complaint.

        3.  The opposite party No.1 filed his written version and same was adopted by opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.3 did not file written version therefore opposite party No.3 was set exparte on 24.10.2017. Later the opposite party 1 and 2 also did not choose to file their evidence affidavits in spite of conditional adjournments and imposing costs. Therefore opposite party 1 and also set exparte.

       4. The complainant filed his evidence as PW-1 and got marked Ex: A1 to A7 and also filed his written arguments.

       5. Now the points for consideration are:-

              (i)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties?           

             (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?        

             (iii)  To what Relief?

                     6.Point No (i):-   The complainant specifically alleging that the mobile phone bearing No. YU 5010 with IMEI No. 91147605 9145441 for Rs.5,199/- from opposite party No.1 under cash bill Ex:A1 with one year warranty period under Ex:A2, the mobile worked only for one week later it was giving troubles such as no service, drop calls,  and no outgoing calls. Therefore, he approached opposite party No.2 the service centre who said that it was repaired and delivered back after 45 days. But unfortunately the problems were continued therefore, again he handed over the mobile phone to opposite party No.2 but neither it was rectified nor replace. Opposite party No.2 himself stated that the mobile was suffering from manufacturing defect. As the opposite parties 1 to 3 failed to either rectify the defects in the mobile or to replace the mobile with new one or to refund the cost of the mobile and also they failed to give reply the notices which amounts deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties 1 to 3. By virtue of Ex:A1 to A7 which supports to contents of evidence on affidavit of the complainant and the contents of complaint as well. The complainant has established that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 and also they caused mental agony to the complainant. Accordingly this point is answered.

                     7.Point No(ii):-   to answer this point, we have to state that the complainant has established  that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 and also established by the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile phone. In spite of repairs affected by opposite party No.2 the mobile phone was not working/ functioned. The opposite parties 1 to 3 also though received notices did not give reply and also not complied with the demands of the complainant. The evidence of complainant coupled with Ex:A1 to Ex:A7 remained un - challenged. The opposite parties 1 to 3 failed to file their evidence affidavits to disproved the case of complainant. Therefore in the above circumstances we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled or the relief sought for. Accordingly this point is answered.

          8.Point (iii):-    Since  the complainant has established  that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 and that the complainant entitled for the reliefs sought for the complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

        In the result the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to refund a sum of Rs. 5,199/- (Rupees five thousand one hundred and ninety nine only) towards cost of the defective mobile phone, that the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 and for mental agony caused to the complainant and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which, the cost of the mobile (Rs.5,199/-) and compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint i.e. 22.06.2017 and from the date of this order respectively.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 31^st day of March, 2018.

        Sd/-                                                                                                                         Sd/-                 Lady Member                                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Sekhar Babu (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

-NIL-

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of Reliance Fresh Limited Bill for Rs.5,199/- towards purchase of mobile cell YU 5010A Yuphoria Blk Slvr, IMEI Number: 911476059145441 issued by O.P.No.1.
	Original copy of Warranty Card issued by the O.P.No.1.
	Photo copy of Job Sheet issued by the O.P.No.2 for the receipt of mobile cell with reported problem. Dt: 18.02.2017.
	Notice issued by the complainant to the OP.No.1. Dt: 04.04.2017.
	Notice issued by the complainant to the OP.No.2. Dt: 04.04.2017.
	Postal acknowledgement card of the O.P.No.1 in original. Dt: 05.04.2017.
	Photo copy of Acknowledgement of O.P.No.2.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

 

             Sd/-

                                                                                                             President

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant, 

                  2) The Opposite parties 1 to 3.