Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

cc/214/2011

S. Veer Raju - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony Ericssion Communications (India) Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

K. Venu Gopal

21 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:20-06-2011

                                                                                                Date of Order:21-02-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President   

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                          Saturday, the 21^st day of February, 2015.

                                  CONSUMER CASE No.214/2011

Between:-

S.Veer Raju, S/o late Kama Raju, Hindu,

Aged 49 years, residing in D.No.17-9-9,

DCMS Compound, Vizianagaram.

….. Complainant

And:-

1.The Manager, Sony Ericssion Communications

   (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4^th floor, Dakha House, 18/17,

   WEA Kard Bagh, New Delhi-110 005.

2.The Manager, Sigma Mobiles Net Work,

   D.No.30-15-153, Shop No.1, Pavan Enclave,

   Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam.

3.The Manager, Bright Solutions, 47-9-14,

   Ganata Arcade, 3^rd lane, Dwarakanagar,

   Visakhapatnam.

                                                                                       …  Opposite Parties     

                     

          This case coming on 20.01.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri K. Venu Gopal, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri S. Jagannadham, Advocate for the 2^nd Opposite Party and Sri B. Ramesh, Sri A.V. Rao and Sri M. Satyanarayana, Advocates for the 3^rd Opposite Party and the 1^st Opposite Party being exparte and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri C. V. Rao, Honourable Male Member, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The Complainant asked the Forum to pass an  award against the Opposite Parties  in his favour:  To replace the mobile phone by giving a new one and also award damages for the mental agony caused to the Complainant due to the deficiency of service and also award costs of the Complainant and the Opposite Parties if they are not replace the new phone, this Forum may be pleased to order for the return of the amount of Rs.24,000/- (Rupees twenty four thousand only) with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization.

 

2.     The 1^st Opposite Party did not resist the claim of the Complainant as it was set exparte and remained exparte.

          The 2^nd Opposite Party resisted the claim of the Complainant and asked the Forum to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

          The 3^rd Opposite Party has also asked the Forum to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

 

3.       The case of the Complainant, as can be seen from the Complaint, is that the Complainant purchased Sony Ericssion Mobile Phone bearing Model Name V10i and Serial No. is IMEI/Serial No.356815032050750 on 17.11.2009 for an amount of Rs.24,000/- from the 2^nd Opposite Party and after date of purchase the phone always having been problem of set hanging and process slow.   The Complainant stated that he immediately contacted the 2^nd Opposite Party and they in turn instructed the Complainant to go to Sony Ericssion Service Centre i.e., 3^rd Opposite Party and the Complainant visited the office of the 3^rd Opposite Party for number of times from November, 2009 and finally they also repaired set on June 12, 2010 and after that also though they gave a certificate to the Complainant.   But the problem of the set was not rectified and the Sony Ericssion set was not working properly and the problem of set hanging and process slow was not rectified.   The Complainant further stated that in the month of July, 2010 he contacted the 3^rd Opposite Party and they also changed the mother board of the mobile phone and handed over the mobile set as promised, it was alright but the set was not rectified and it has also facing the same original problem.   The Complainant stated also that he was local business man having very reputed concerns and he has to use the phone to his customers’ throughout India and also he received incoming calls from throughout India.   From 17.11.2009 from the date of purchase of the mobile phone for an amount of Rs.24,000/- the Opposite Parties caused the mental agony and also not rectified the problem of his mobile phone till date and it clearly shows dereliction and deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant is a customer to the Sony Ericssion mobile phone and the Opposite Parties are bound to give the correct working mobile phone and it also has sufficient guarantee and warranty period from the date of purchase till today.    The 2^nd Opposite Party sold the very defective mobile to the Complainant by taking Rs.24,000/- on 17.10.2009.    The 1^st Opposite Party is the dealer Sony Ericssion Mobile Phones, the 2^nd Opposite Party is the retail shop holder of mobile phones and the 3^rd Opposite Party is the authorized service centre of the Sony Ericssion Phones at Visakhapatnam and all the Opposite Parties are having joint and several liability for the defective phone sold to the Complainant on 17.11.2009.   The Complainant got issued a registered notice .10.2010 to the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties received the same and they kept quite.   Hence, the Complaint is filed in this Forum to pass an award for the more fully claimed against the Opposite Parties.  Hence, this Complaint.

 

4.       The Complainant filed an evidence affidavit and also written arguments to support his claim.      Exs.A1 to A3 are marked for the Complainant.

 

5.       On the other hand, the 2^nd Opposite Party resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from its counter, that at the time of purchasing the mobile itself it informed the Complainant that Warranty is as per the manufacturers terms and conditions and at their respective authorized servicing centers only but not by the 2^nd Opposite Party for which the Complainant agreed and purchased the mobile.    Now as an afterthought and with an intention to extract money from this Opposite Party, the Complainant herein filed present complaint against the 2^nd Opposite Party without having any proper cause of action.    In fact the complainant herein caused lot of mental agony to the 2^nd Opposite Party without any fault of theirs thereby the 2^nd Opposite Party is reserving their right to file a separate suit for damages against the Complainant at relevant point of time.   The 2^nd Opposite Party further stated that the terms and conditions are categorically mentioned in the Cash Bill bearing Serial No.495 dated 17.11.2009, which was given by it to the Complainant herein.   After perusing the said terms and conditions and after having knowledge about the same, the Complainant purchased the mobile phone.   Now the Complainant suppressed the material facts and got filed the present complaint against the 2^nd Opposite Party; on this ground also the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

6.       The 2^nd Opposite Party filed an evidence affidavit and also Written Arguments to buttress its contentions.   However, no Exhibits are marked for the 2^nd Opposite Party.

 

7.       The 3^rd Opposite Party also very strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from its counter, that it is not aware that the Complainant got issued a registered notice to the Opposite Parties.    There is no date mentioned in the legal notice, it is clearly established that the Complainant filed a false Complaint.   The 3^rd Opposite Party stated that the Complainant gave the handset and thorough check-up done and the Complainant received the same and the Complainant utilized the handset.   So far the handset is not handed over to the 3^rd Opposite Party   as it is running a proper manner.   The Complainant has a malafide intention to file this Complaint into this Forum.   The Complainant did not approach this Forum with clean hands.    The 3^rd Opposite Party stated also that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties at any point of time.   The hand set is working properly.   The hand set is in the custody of the Complainant.    The Complainant filed this complaint beyond the scope of the terms and conditions and there is no deficiency of the Opposite  parties and it is liable to be dismissed in limini.

 

8.       The 3^rd Opposite Party filed an evidence affidavit and also written arguments to support its contentions.   Exs.B1 to Ex.B3 are marked for the 3^rd Opposite Party.

 

9.       The matter has been heard on behalf of the Complainant as well as the Opposite Parties 2 & 3.

         

10.     After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the Complainant purchased a mobile phone in question on 17.11.2009 as per Ex.A1 Cash Bill.   As per Ex.B1 (Manual of Terms and Conditions) the warranty period was for one year i.e., up to 16.11.2010 in the present case.   As per Ex.A2 work order, the Complainant approached the 3^rd Opposite Party on June 12, 2010 for repair and after repair the mobile phone was handed back to the Complainant on June 29, 2010 to the entire satisfaction of the Complainant, this is nearly after 7 months of the purchase.   Once again on 13.11.2010 as per (Ex.B2) the Complainant approached the 3^rd Opposite Party and the said phone was repaired and handed over on 03.12.2010, as per Ex.B3, the said repair was also to the entire satisfaction of the Complainant and he signed thereon.    By that time the warranty has already elapsed.    Moreover, very peculiarly, there is no date mentioned in the socalled legal notice (Ex.A3) issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties.   There are no acknowledgements either.   So, the issuance of the said legal notice is itself doubtful.   Last but not the least, by 22.11.2010, the day on which the Complainant filed this Complaint, in the first place, at Vizianagaram, also the warranty has already lapsed.   Moreover, Ex.B3 clearly shows that after filing the said complaint at Vizianagaram, the Complainant was utilizing the services of the 3^rd Opposite Party for the said phone and actually got it back in a good condition on 03.12.2010.    All this shows that the Complainant approached this forum with unclean hands, holding an untenable claim.    As such, this Complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

 

11.     In the result, this Complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 21^st day of February, 2015.

   Sd/-                                       Sd/-                                      Sd/-

President                          Lady Member                           Male Member

 

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	17.11.2009	Cash Bill No.495 an  amount of Rs. 24,000/-  issued by the 2nd OP in favour of the Complainant	Original
Ex.A02	17.11.2009	Cash Bill No. 495 an amount of Rs.24,000/- & Application issued by the 2nd Opposite Party	Photo copy
EX.A03		Letter addressed by the Complainant’s counsel to the Ops	Office copy

 

 

 

For the 3^rd Opposite Party:-           

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.B01		Manual of Terms and Conditions	Photo copy
Ex.B02	13.11.2010	Acknowledgment given by the 3rd OP to the Complainant	Photo copy
Ex.B03	13.11.2010	Endorsement given by the 3rd OP to the Complainant	Office copy

For the Opposite Parties 1&2:-                

                                                -Nil-

   Sd/-                                       Sd/-                                           Sd/-

President                            Lady Member                             Male Member