IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> CC 472/09 DATED 11.02.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant K.B. Kubera S/o A.V. Basappa, Door No.16/71, Basaveshwara Block, K.R. Nagara.<br /> <br /> (In person)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. Proprietor/Manager, Sangeetha Mobile Pvt. Ltd., No.2892/1, D-1/1, 11th cross, Kalidasa Road, V.V. Puram, Devaraja Mohalla, Mysore.<br /> 2. Proprietor/Manager, Sangeetha Mobile Pvt. Ltd., No:37, Sannidi Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560004. <br /> (O.P.1 is Exparte & O.P.2 is inperson)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 15.12.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 13.01.2010<br /> Date of order : 11.02.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 29Days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint seeking a direction to the opposite parties to receive back the mobile handset and to give new one and also cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint it is alleged that, on 27.10.2009, the complainant has purchased the Sony Ericsson company mobile handset for a sum of Rs.2,200/-. Since from the very next day of purchase, the handset did not work properly. Complainant got it repaired from the service center, but again it is not working. When complainant enquired in this regard with the opposite parties, there was no response. Complainant had sent message to the company. The company sent message to get it repaired from the service center. But from the service center, there was no response. Registered letter were sent to the opposite parties, but they have not replied. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The first opposite party despite due service of the notice, is set exparte. However, letter was addressed to the Forum to direct the complainant to receive brand new box piece mobile handset and to return the defective handset.<br /> <br /> 4. The second opposite party has filed version contending that, the complaint is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of the company. It is stated that, this opposite party is serving the mobile handset without opening the seal of the container box as the retailer, and hence the manufacturer is only responsible. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. The first opposite party is set exparte and for the second opposite party has not affidavit is filed. We have heard the arguments of the complainant and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 6. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly allowed.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 8. Point no. 1:- The fact that, the complainant has purchased the mobile handset from the opposite party supported by the affidavit and the documents. More over, it is not denied by the opposite parties. On the other hand, in the letter sent by the first opposite party to the Forum, it is stated that, the complainant may be directed to receive brand new box piece mobile handset of Sony Ericsson K330 by returning the defective set. It goes to show that, the first opposite party is ready to redress the grievance of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 9. The second opposite party in the version has contended that, the manufacturer is a necessary party. it is true, the manufacturer is a proper party, but not a necessary party. The opposite party being dealers is equally liable and responsible.<br /> <br /> 10. Considering the facts and the material on record, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is established. Accordingly, finding on the point is partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 11. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> <br /> 1. The complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite parties jointly and severally are hereby directed to replace new mobile handset to the defective one, which is the subject matter of the present case of the same brand with same facilities, within a month from the date of the order. On receipt of the new handset complainant shall return the defective handset to the opposite party.<br /> 3. The opposite parties jointly and severally shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- cost of the proceedings to the complainant.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 11th February 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />