Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 24th day of May, 2004
C.D.No.140/2003
Rakop Eswaraiah,
S/o. Late Nagaraju,
H.No. 64/103,
Fort,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
Royal Communications,
Sales and Service Centre,
40-221/2A, Abdulkhan Estate,
Kurnool. . . Opposite party represented by
his counsel Sri T.C. Venkata Ramana
O R D E R
(As per Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy Member)
1. The complaint of the complainant is filed under Sec.12 of C.P. Act 1986, seeking a direction against the opposite party to pay the cost of cell phone, RS, 3200/-, RS.10,000/-, mental agony and RS.1,000/- towards cost of the complaint.
2. The case of the complaint is that the complainant purchased from the opposite party Sony C.M.D –5 cell phone for RS.3,200/- on 2.11.2002 and the number is also registered in BSNL Company , cell phone No. 9490013883. The same cell phone worked properly for two months there after the cell phone shown to the Op, The Op informed that the cell Phone battery box is damaged and the same should be replaced with new one. Even though the complainant regularly contacting the Op for the replacement of the battery box but the opposite party postponing the matter. Further the Op is well acquainted that the said cell phone is very old one and the Sony Company had already stopped production and its spare parts also not available in the market, thus the Op intentionally induced the complainant to purchase the said cell phone and refused to refund the amount of RS.3, 200/- replace the new cell phone, this conduct of Op by selling the defective said cell phone knowingly fully non available spare parts and in not refunding the said amount held deficiency of service to the complainant. However the complainant is entitled for the payment of the cost of cell Phone and other reliefs .
3. In support of the complainant’s contents the complainant is relied on the bill dated 2.11.2002 which is marked as Ex A.1 for its appreciation and on the analysis report of the cell phone of the complainants given by anwar times, Kurnool and the complainant also filed his sworn affidavit re-iterating his complaint averments.
4. The Op in pursuance of the notice served on him made his appearance through counsel and filed written version and sworn affidavit denying the truth and bonafidies of the complaint averments and the maintainability of the complaint on facts and Law the Op submits that there is no record with it that the complainant ever purchased Sony CMD cell phone for RS.3,200/- from the Op. The alleged purchased bill filed along with the complaint does not disclose that CMD –5 cell phone was sold to the complainant and not also indicate that it is a purchase bill. Several customers come and take quotations from the Op and the xerox copy of the same filed and the complainant has also not furnished the warranty which is usually given if really a cell phone has been soled by the op. Hence the Op is not liable to replace by new cell phone or refund of RS.3, 200/- and not liable for any damages or costs of the complaint and it hasto be dismissed with costs.
5. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sougth in this complaint.
6. The Ex A.1 is a bill dated 2.11.2002 issued by the Op showing the Purchase of Sony CMD-5 cell phone for RS.3, 200/-. As alleged by the Op it is not a quotation, the word bill is also not mentioned, but issued on a white paper with date and place under the opposite partie’s seal. Where as opposite party rebutted it saying that it is quotation which is usually given by the OP. But no such cogent material filed by the opposite party to prove his case but filed an unattested Performa xerox copy of cash/ credit bill and also filed an unattested xerox copy of a carbon copy of a cash bill of Sri Y.Ravindranath Reddy Kurnool dt 22.11.2003, where as the complaint filed by the complainant on 4.9.2003 in the Forum Kurnool in which the said person purchased Nokia make 2001 cell Phone for RS.5, 600/- and mentioned in it as one year warranty. As these documents are not marked for their appreciation. Even the Op not filed the sworn affidavit of the said customer to prove his case that the op is given the warranty card which is usually given as alleged by the Op in his written version at para 4 and sworn affidavit at para 3.
7. As seen from the above it is clearly appears that where as the complainant has purchased Sony CMD-5 cell phone on 2.11.2002 and the OP has filed an alleged bill of one Sri Y.Ravindranath Reddy on 22.11.2003 i.e after lapse of one year, where in he has purchased Nokia 2001 Cell phone is not that of Sony CMd-5. This gives support to the allegation of the complaint that the Op is well acquainted that the said Cell phone (Sony CMd-5) is very old one and the Sony company had already stopped production and its spare parts also not available in the market. Further the complainant obtained and filed an examination/ analysis report issued by anwar times, Kurnool which was called through the Forum Kurnool where in it was observed that the said Sony cell phone is beyond repairable and its battery box also not available in the market and further says that the said anwar times tried for the same number of the Sony battery and is not available.
- Hence, absolutely no cogent material on the record in support of the contentions of the opposite party’s case, as is remaining with out any justifiable excuse, the said conduct of the OP is certainly amounting to failure on the part of the Op in forming the statutory duty, there by amounting to deficiency of service and there by entitling the complainant to the claim as a bonafidies of the complainants claim is not other-wise disturbed. In the result and in sum up of the above discussion, the complainant is allowed directing the opposite party to pay the cost of cell phone RS.3, 200/- and RS.500/- towards compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint and that the opposite party is granted one month time for the compliance of this order and further the complainant is directed to hand over the Sony cell Phone CMD-5 to the opposite party at the opposite party at the time of the payment of the supra awarded amount to him (complainant) .
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court this the 24th day of May, 2004.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
