<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 29.12.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 27th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2833/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Moiz A.Dhinojwala,S/o Abdul Hussain Dhinojwala,Aged about 42 years,No.45 ‘D’ (Old No.155)S.P Road,Bangalore – 560 002.Advocate – Sri.Venkataramana K.SV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Reliance Webstore Ltd.,Regd. Office: H-Block, I Floor,Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City,Thane – Belapur Road,Koperkhairne,Navi Mumbai – 400 710.2. Reliance World,Mota Royal Arcade,Reliance Web World,Ground Floor No.158,Brigade Road,Bangalore.Advocate – Sri.Shankar S.Bhat3. ESSEM Communications,7th Main, 4th Block,91/92, Hema Chandra Complex,Jayanagar,Bangalore – 560 011.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a sum of Rs.68,500/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant purchased one mobile phone Motorola – V9M for a total cost of Rs.18,500/- from OP.2 on 23.12.2007. OP promised to activate the said phone within two days. With in a span of few days complainant noticed certain inherent defects in the said instrument. It was not allowing either outgoing calls or incoming calls. Immediately he informed the OP.2 about the said defect. OP.2 directed him to approach OP.3. Then complainant approached OP.3 and handed over the said set for rectification on 08.04.2008 within warranty period. OP.3 attended to the repair work and returned it. But the result is one and the same. Hence complainant again took the said set to OP.3. Later on as per the instructions of OP.2, OP.3 changed the handset on 01.05.2008. Even that handset was also not working properly. Not only that OP changed the number from 9343791951 to 9342159315 to the reasons best known. Due to the arbitrary act of OP.2 & 3 complainant was forced to face difficulties. Though complainant invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the defects in the said handset. His repeated requests and demands made to OP either to rectify the defect or replace it or refund the cost went in futile. Thus he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP.1 & 2 filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant. According to OP.1 & 2 they are not the manufacturers of the said telephone. OP.2 is only an outlet of OP.1 they are in no way connected with the defects found in the said handset. The manufacturer of the said handset is not made as a party. Hence complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party. The transaction is of commercial in nature. Hence complainant can’t contend himself as a ‘consumer’. OP.3 is not the authorized service center for OP.1 & 2. Considering the case of the complainant and the so called defects, set is replaced by OP.3. OP.2 never said OP.3 to replace it. Complainant using two mobile phones. There is no alteration of the earlier number to new number. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP.1 & 2. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP.1 & 2 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. OP.3 though appeared failed to file version.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP.1 and 2 have also filed their affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased one Motorola – V9M mobile handset from OP.2 for Rs.18,500/- on 23.12.2007 and it carried warranty of one year. Complainant has produced the documents to that effect. According to the complainant within a few days he noticed certain defects with the said handset and it was not allowing outgoing calls or incoming calls. Then he immediately approached OP.2. OP.2 directed complainant to approach OP.3. Complainant went to OP.3 and handed over the set for repairs on 08.04.2008. Though it was returned on 09.04.2008 contending that the defects are cured but it is false the said set again started giving trouble. On insistence at the direction of OP.2, OP.3 changed handset on 01.05.2008. Even that handset was also not working properly.<br /> <br /> 7. Complainant further says without his consent OP.2 & 3 in collusion with each other changed number from 934379195 to 9342159315. But according to OP, complainant availed two handsets and those two handsets having different number. On the perusal of the defence set out by the OP there is an admission with regard to the defect in the handset sold to the complainant otherwise there is no need for OP.3 to replace the same. Even replaced handset is not working properly. <br /> <br /> 8. Complainant invested his hard earned money to get the defect free handset but unfortunately he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. When OP.1 & 2 have received the cost of the said handset it is rather fair on their part to sell the defect free handset. Unfortunately they have not discharged their obligation. The contention of the OP that only manufacturer is answerable with regard to the cost and replacement of the instrument appears to be baseless. OP.1 & 2 wants to wash of their hands and obligation to the reasons best known.<br /> <br /> 9. OP.3 has not filed separate version but complainant established the fact that OP.3 at the directions of OP.2 replaced the original set. Even that exchanged set is also not working properly. Under such circumstances we find the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service against all the three OP’s. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. Due to the defective handset sold by OP.1 & 2 complainant is unable to utilize the said set for the purpose for which he purchased it. Under such circumstances naturally he must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. Of course the claim of the complainant with regard to issuing directions to OP to pay Rs.68,500/- appears to be baseless.<br /> <br /> 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view justice will be met by directing the OP’s to replace the said handset with a brand new defect free set of the same model for the same cost within reasonable time or refund the cost of the said handset to the complainant. With these reasons we answer point No.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP’s are directed to replace the defective handset with a brand new defect free handset of the same model for the same cost within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. Failing in which OP.1 & 2 are directed to refund the cost of the said mobile Rs.18,500/- and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/- and take back the defective set. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 27th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />