Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/1/2016

Kooragayala Jayachandra, S/o. K.Munaswamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.P.Mobiles, by its Authorized Signatory - Opp.Party(s)

G.Ramaiah Pillai

23 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

 

                                                                                                Filing Date:-29-12-2015                                                                                                               Order Date: -23-06-2016

 

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

Present: - Sri. Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                       Smt. T. Anitha, Member

 

       THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND    

SIXTEEN

C.C.No.01/2016

Between

Kooragayala Jayachandra, S/o. K. Munaswamy,

Hindu, aged about 53 years, PC 1207, residing

At 6-48/24, SKD Nagar, MR Palle, Tirupati.                     …. Complainant

 

And

1.S.P.Mobiles, by its Authorized Signatory,

    Plaza-4, 58, Sridevi Complex,

    Tirupati-517 501,

    Cell 9030389143.

 

2. Karbon Mobiles,

    Panasonic Smart Phones Service Centre,

    By its Authorized signatory,

    5, Municipal Complex,

    Opp. Indhira Maidhan,

    Tirupati-517 501.

 

3. Panasonic Service Net Work Details,

   By its Authorized signatory,

   Jaina Marketting and Associates,

   D.No.172, Okhla, Industrial Area,

   Phase No.1, New Delhi-110 020.                                       …. Opposite parties

 

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 10.06.2016 and upon perusing the complaint, written arguments of the complainant and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri. G. Ramaiah Pillai and opposite parties 1 to 3 remained exparte having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

         This complaint is filed by the complainant under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties for selling defective mobile phone and prayed this Forum to pass an order directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to refund cost of the mobile phone i.e.Rs.9,199/- and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service caused to the complainant and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the litigation expenses.

         2. The brief facts of the case are: The complainant purchased the Panasonic Mobile phone Model No. ELUGU bearing no.IMEI/ESN-1-355941060008584 and IMEI/ESN-2-355941060028582 for Rs.9,199/-  through his son on 31.12.2014 from the shop of the opposite party no.1which is having warranty period of one year. The complainant further submits that from the date of purchase the said mobile phone is not working properly and gave problems, hence he approached the opposite party no.2, authorized service centre several times to rectify the defect. But still the cell remained continuing with the same defect. Hence as per the advice of the opposite party no.2 the complainant approached the opposite party no.1 to get the new one in place of the old one because the said phone is having manufacturing defect which is in the warranty period. But the opposite party no.1 after receipt of the same, on 04.12.2015 returned the mobile phone to the complainant and refused to give the new phone in the place of defective mobile. Hence he caused a legal notice on 8.12.2015 to opposite party 1 to 3 to replace the defective cell with a new one or to refund the cost of the mobile and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service.  Even though after receipt of the notice by opposite party no. 1 and 2 they kept silent, hence he filed the present complaint. After receipt of the notices by the opposite parties 1 to 3 they failed to appear before this Forum.  Hence the opposite parties 1 to 3 remained absent and set exparte. The chief affidavit of the complainant filed and Ex.A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of him.

       3.  Now the points for consideration are:

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

                     towards the complainant?   

              (ii)   Whether the cell phone purchased by the complainant is defective in

                      nature?           

              (iii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? If so? To

                       what extent?            

              (iv)   To what Relief?

         4. Point No:-(i)& (ii):-  As per the contention of the complainant, from the date of purchase the said cell phone is not working properly hence he approached the opposite party no.2 several times for getting it repaired. But they did not render the service properly by rectifying the defect in said cell phone. At last the complainant handed over the cell phone to the opposite party no.1 as per the advice of the opposite party no.2 to get the new one in place of the old one because the said phone is having manufacturing defect which is in the warranty period. But the opposite party no.1 after receipt of the same, on 04.12.2015 returned the mobile phone to the complainant and refused to give the new phone in the place of defective mobile. Hence it seems that the cell might have sustained manufacturing defect otherwise there is no need for him to approach the opposite parties several times. It clearly shows that the said cell phone is having manufacturing defect which cannot be rectified. After receipt of the legal notice and notices of this Forum the opposite parties failed to appear before this Forum and challenged the contentions of the complainant. That itself clear shows that there is a deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties to rectify the defect and also rendering the service to their customers. That itself clearly shows that there is deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties towards the complainant. Hence the complainant suffered mental agony and the purpose of the purchasing the cell phone is not served.  Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

         5. Point(iii):-   in view of our finding on point no.1 and 2 the complainant is entitled for the price of the cell phone of Rs.9,199/- (rupees nine thousand one hundred and ninety nine only)along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of realization and for Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and for mental agony and deficiency in service suffered by the complainant  and also Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

        6.Point (iv):-    In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally  to return the cell phone price amount for Rs.9,199/-(rupees nine thousand one hundred and ninety nine only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of realization. The opposite parties further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousand only)towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation expenses. The opposite parties further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which, the compensation amount of Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousand only) shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization.

            Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 23^rd day of June, 2016.

           Sd/-                                                                                                              Sd/-

  Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

 

C.C.No.01/2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

PW-1: K. Jaya Chandra (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartIES.

 

-NIL-

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Receipt in Original for Rs. 9,199/- towards purchase of mobile of Panasonic bearing IMEI No.355941060008584 issued by Opposite Party No.1. Dt: 31.12.2014.
	Service centre Job Sheet c opy( Photo copy) issued by Opposite Party No.2 nothing the problem LCD touch replaced/touch problem. Dt: 30.10.2015.
	Endorsement of Opposite Party No.1 returning the phone to the customer on the copy of the receipt. Dt: 04.12.2015.
	Office copy of Legal Notice to Opposite Parties 1 to 3. Dt: 08.12.2015.
	Postal acknowledgements from Opposite Parties 1 and 2. Dt: 16.12.2015.
	Returned undelivered registered letter addressed to Opposite Party No.3 as refused. Dt: 19.12.2015.
	Warranty Card (Original) issued by the Opposite Party No.1. Dt: 31.12.2014.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

     -NIL-

 

      Sd/-

President

 

// TRUE COPY //

         // BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to: 1. The Complainant.

                  2. The Opposite Parties.