This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing in the presence of     Sri. Vutukuru Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for complainant and the opposite parties 1 & 2 called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased CelKon A98 Model Mobile phone on 25-07-2013 from Big-C Mobiles, Khammam.  The actual cost of said mobile is of Rs.7,999/- but the complainant had purchased the same with one year warranty at Rs.5,200/- under “Aashadam” Offer.  The opposite party No.2 was marketed the said mobiles and the opposite party no.1 is the local service provider of opposite party No.2.   Within few days, the mobile phone started giving troubles like automatic Blue tooth off, MMC card slot problem.  Upon which, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 on 09-11-2013 and handed over the mobile for rectification of defects, the opposite party no.1 requested time for one month for rectification of defects.  Thus, the complainant approached the opposite parties No.1 on 09-12-2013 but the opposite party No.1 stated that the problems were not rectifiable, therefore, they are ready to replace A-98 Model with A10 model, by believing the words of opposite party No.1, the complainant received A10 model mobile in the place of A98 model to avoid the auction proceedings under condition No.11 of terms and conditions for warranty repairs.  But after receiving A10 model, the complainant came to know that the A10 model mobile was not having similar features with that of A98 model and also low cost than A98 model.  Therefore, the complainant alleges the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and due to which, he suffered a lot and issued legal notice on 16-12-2013 and constrained to file this complainant as there is no response from the opposite parties even after receipt of legal notice.  The complainant prayed this Forum, to direct the opposite parties to return the A98 model Celkon mobile phone after rectification of defects or replace A98 model with new one at cost of Rs.5,200/- and Rs.50,000/- towards damages together with interest @ 24% P.A. and costs.  

3.       Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed the following documents, those were marked as Exhibits A1 to A6.

Ex.A1:- Bill dt. 25-07-2013 for Rs.5,200/-.

Ex.A2:- Photocopy of Job Card dt.09-11-2013, issued by opposite party No.1.

Ex.A3:- Job Card dt.09-11-2013, issued by opposite party No.1.

Ex.A4:- Office copy of Legal Notice, dt. 16-12-2013 with postal Acknowledgements.

Ex.A5:- Net copy of Full Phone Specifications of Celkon A98.

Ex.A6:- Net copy of Full Phone Specifications of Celkon A10.

4.       Despite service, the opposite parties neither appeared nor filed their version till the matter was posted for orders.

5.       In view of the above circumstances, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief

                        as prayed for?

Point:-

6.       According to the averments of the complaint and basing on the material on record, it is clear that the complainant had purchased Celkon A98 Model mobile phone for Rs. 5,200/- under discount offer, thereafter it started giving troubles and not rectified even after keeping the same with the opposite party No.1 for about one month for rectification of defects, due to which, the opposite party No.1 replaced the same with A10 model new mobile phone, evidenced under Exhibits A1 and A2.  Exhibits A1 and A2 are the Job Cards, issued by opposite party No.1 by mentioning the defects and replacement of A98 with A10 model.  It is also the case of the complainant that after replacement, the complainant observed that A10 model mobile has no similar features and capacity by comparing with A98 model.  Though, the opposite parties replaced with A10 model, which is low price than A98 model.  To prove his contentions the complainant placed exhibits A5 and A6 by alleging the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  According to Exhibits A5 and A6 it is clear that there are no similarities in between A98 i.e. original purchased unit and A10 model, even though the opposite parties replaced the mobile, has no similar features and same cost, is definitely amounts to unfair trade practice and the attitude of opposite parties in providing proper services to the complainant is also amounts to deficiency of service.  Therefore the point is safely concluded in favour of the complainant by holding that the opposite parties are liable to replace A10 model Celkon mobile with A98 model or with any other equivalent model, has the same features as in A98 model.

7.       In the result the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to replace Celkon A10 Model mobile phone with A98 Brand New Model or with any other equivalent model, having same features or to return the cost of A98 model @ Rs.5,200/-to the complainant.  Further directed to pay Rs.500/- towards costs of the complaint within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this the  3^rd day of December, 2014.

          Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

          Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam