DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: ANANTAPUR.

PRESENT: - Sri S.Chinnaiah., B.A., B.L., President

Smt. S. Lalitha, M.A. B.L., Member.

   Monday the 30^th day of June, 2008

C.C.No.58/2008

Between:-

P. Somasekhar Reddy,

S/o Chenna Reddy,

Hindu, aged about 33 years,

Employee in A.P.C.P.D.C. Limited,

Bukkapatnam Village & Mandal,

Anantapur District.                                            …  Complainant

Vs.

Satyam Collections,

Door.No.14/89,

Subash Road,

Anantapur.                                                  …   Opposite Party

This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri K. Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for the Complainant and the Opposite Party is called absent and set-exparte and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:

                                           O R D E R

(Per Smt. S. Lalitha, Lady Member)

        This is the complaint filed on behalf of the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying this Forum to direct the Opposite Party either to replace the Cell with new one or to repay the amount of Rs.2,900/-, grant costs of the complaint, to pay interest @ 24% p.a. till the date of payment and such other relief or reliefs. 

:: 2 ::

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the permanent resident of Bukkapatnam Village and he is working in A.P.C.P.D.C. Limited, Bukkapatnam. The Opposite Party is running his business in Cell Phones under the name and style ‘ SATYAM COLLECTIONS ‘ in Anantapur Town.  The complainant has purchased CELL PHONE from the Opposite Party relating to NOKIA Company Model No.6030 on 24-04-2008 for Rs.2,900/- under the Bill No.944.  At the time of purchase of Cell Phone, the Opposite Party informed to the complainant that the Cell purchased by the complainant relating to 2008 Model and the package box which was supplied by the Opposite Party clearly reveals that the above Cell Phone was manufactured in the month of April, 2008.  Believing the words of the Opposite Party, the complainant purchased the Cell from the Opposite Party by paying the bill amount.  After purchasing the Cell Phone, when the complainant checked about the manufacturing date in the Cell, he noticed that the date of manufacturing was 15-05-2007.  The complainant immediately approached to the Opposite Party and informed about the fact and requested to replace the Cell Phone with new one or return the amount which was paid by the complainant. 

        The complainant further submits that the Opposite Party agreed initially to replace the Cell Phone with new one and went on postponing the same on one pretext or the other.  On 28-04-2008 the complainant issued a notice to the Opposite Party personally and a Legal Notice was issued on 12-05-2008 by the complainant through his advocate.  The Opposite Party did not respond either personal notice of the complainant or to the Legal Notice.  Hence, the complainant approached this Forum

:: 3 ::

for redressal alleging that the Opposite Party cheated him and there was deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.  The attitude of the Opposite Party caused to him mental agony and the complainant pleaded the Forum to direct the Opposite Party either to replace the Cell with new one or to repay the amount of Rs.2,900/- and grant such other relief or reliefs. 

The Opposite Party after receipt of notice did not attend this Forum and so the Opposite Party is called absent set- exparte.    Ex.A1 to A4 are marked on behalf of the complainant.

    Now the point for determination is whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

 POINT:-   The complainant has purchased CELL PHONE from the Opposite Party relating to NOKIA Company Model No.6030 on           24-04-2008 for Rs.2,900/- under the Bill No.944 (Ex.A1).  The contention of the complainant is that at the time of purchase of Cell Phone, the Opposite Party showed that manufacturing date of the Cell Phone was April, 2008.  Believing the words of the Opposite Party, after seeing the manufacturing date on the package box, the complainant purchased the Cell Phone by paying the bill amount.  When, the complainant checked the manufacturing date by operating the          No. *#0000#, he found that the manufacturing date is 15-05-2007.  Immediately  he approached the Opposite Party and reported about the fact and demanded to replace the Cell Phone with new one or refund the bill amount of Rs.2,900/-.

:: 4 ::

        The further contention of the complainant is that initially the Opposite Party considered his plea and accepted to replace the Cell Phone with new one, but did not implement the same. The contention of the complainant is that inspite of his personal notice (Ex.A2) and Legal Notice (Ex.A3) the Opposite Party did not respond either to replace the Cell Phone with new one or refund the bill amount, it clearly shows the unfair trade and deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.

Here by perusal of the document Ex.A1, it is noticed that there was no dispute regarding the purchase of Cell Phone NOKIA Company Model No.6030 from the Opposite Party by the complainant on           24-04-2008.  The complainant’s advocate argued that the manufacturing date on the package box was shown as April, 2008 and when it was checked, the date of manufacturing was 15-05-2007.  It clearly shows the Opposite Party cheated the complainant by showing the manufacturing date on the package box.  This type of unfair trade and deficiency of service caused mental agony to the complainant.  If the Cell Phone is manufactured in April, 2008, the charge retaining capacity will be intact.  The complainant’s advocate vehemently argued that after one year from the date of manufacturing, the battery will lose its charge holding capacity.  Though, the complainant is using his Cell, he found that holding capacity of battery charge is only for one day, this is causing much inconvenience to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant is demanding for a New Cell Phone of latest manufacturing date.  The complainant’s advocate further argues that the complainant was completely duped/cheated by the Opposite Party.  Hence, the unfair

trade and deficiency of service must be compensated with an award of replacement of the Cell Phone with new one or refund of the bill amount. 

:: 5 ::

The Opposite Party after receiving the notices from the Forum did not respond either to attend or to file any counter.  Hence, the opposite party called absent set-exparte.   The Opposite Party did not respond either to the notices of the complainant or notices of this Forum.  The complainant tried his level best in bringing the fact to the notice of the Opposite party, though the Opposite Party initially accepted for replacement but did not respond afterwards.  It shows his negligent act and deficiency of service towards the customers.  By taking into consideration of the above facts, this Forum is pleased to direct the Opposite Party either to replace the Cell Phone with new one or pay back the bill amount to the complainant.

        In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite Party to replace the Cell Phone with new one or to refund the bill amount of Rs.2,900/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Nine Hundred only) on the complainant surrendering Cell Phone to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.250/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty only) towards the costs of the complaint.  This order shall be complied with, within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.  

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum on 30^th day of June, 2008.

                     Sd/-                                                          Sd/-  

                PRESIDENT,                                              MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,              DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,

               ANANTAPUR                                             ANANTAPUR

:: 6 ::

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

COMPLAINANT:  NIL                                           OPPOSITE PARTY: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

Ex.A1:      Purchase Bill dated 24-04-2008 for Rs.2,900/- issued by the Opposite Party.

Ex.A2:      Letter addressed by the complainant to the Opposite Party.

Ex.A3:      Office copy of Legal Notice issued to the Opposite Party, dated 12-05-2008.

Ex.A4:      Postal acknowledgment served on the Opposite Party.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY

-  NIL -

                     Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

              PRESIDENT,                                             MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,              DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,

             ANANTAPUR.                                          ANANTAPUR.

Typed by UNR