DISTRICT FORUM:: KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT
SRI S.A. KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER.
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., MEMBER
Tuesday, 14th September 2010
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 54 / 2010
Meda Krishnaiah, S/o Late Sanjeeva Rayudu, Hindu,
about 55 years, Business, Resident of D.No. 13/313,
Pottisriramulu Street, Proddatur town & Mandal,
Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1) Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd.,
4th floor, Dakha House 18/17, WEA Karol Bagh,
New Delhi – 110 005.
2) Pradeep Cell Service, Rep. by its Proprietor Pradeep,
S/o Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 30 years, Business,
Resident of D.No. 13/527, Light Palem Center,
Proddatur Town & Mandal, Kadapa District. ….. Respondents
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 14-9-2010 in the presence of Sri N.V. Vara Prasad, Advocate for complainant and Respondents called absent and set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao, President),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant purchased one Sony Ericsson model W350 (camera) mobile phone for Rs. 6,800/- on 21-11-2008 from R2 shop. R1 was importer / wholesale authorizer of Sony Ericsson mobile phones in India. R2 was retail dealer at Proddatur town. Four months, after purchase the cell phone gave trouble like display, functional keys, walkman lock and charging. He approached R2 to rectify the defects or supply with new phone. But R2 did not respond. The complainant then approached the workshop of R1 at Hyderabad where the mechanics informed that the problem could not be rectified. Therefore, on 29-8-2009 a notice was issued to both the Respondents. They were served but no reply. Thus the complaint was filed directing the Respondents to rectify the defects and supply fresh mobile phone with the same model and directing to pay Rs. 6,800/- towards cost of the mobile phone and directing to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs.
3. Notices of R1 & R2 were served and R2 was present and was taking time for filing counter till 24-8-2010. Since no counter was filed and no representation to both the Respondents and they were called absent and set exparte on 24-8-2010.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
i. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
iii. To what relief?
5. On behalf of the complainant PW1 was examined and Ex. A1 to A5 were marked.
6. Point Nos. 1& 2. Heard. The petitioner was PW1, who purchased one Sony Ericsson (camera) W350 model for Rs. 6,800/- on 21-11-2008 from R2 shop under a cash bill. The Photostat copy of cash bill was Ex. A1. The R1 was the importer / wholesale authorizer of the Sony Ericsson mobile phones. Four months later the cell phone gave troubles like display, functional keys, walkman lock and charging. When the PW1 approached R2 and also R1 they could not rectify the defects. Thus, the PW1 got issued a notice on 29-8-2009 to both the Respondents. The office copy of the notice was Ex. A2. Ex. A3 was postal acknowledgment card from R1. Ex. A4 was postal acknowledgement card from R2. The PW1 filed Ex. A5 warranty certificate. The complainant filed a case for 1) rectification of defects, 2) supply of fresh cell phone of the same model, 3) to pay Rs. 6,800/- towards cost of the mobile phone and 4) Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs.
7. Point No. 3 The Petition is allowed without costs and compensation, directing the R2 only to rectify the defects of the cell phone of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The complainant is directed to handover the cell phone to R2 within 30 days from today for rectification of the defects and take acknowledgement from R2. The case against R1 is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 14th September 2010
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant
PW1 Meda Krishnaiah, dt. 14-9-2010.
For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of receipt issued by R2, dt. 21-11-2008.
Ex. A2 Office copy of notice from complainant’s advocate to Respondents,
dt. 29-8-2009.
Ex. A3 Postal acknowledgement card from R1.
Ex. A4 Postal acknowledgement card from R2.
Ex. A5 Warranty certificate issued by R2, dt. 21-11-2008.
Exhibits marked for Respondent: - ----- NIL ------
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Sri N.V. Vara Prasad, Advocate for complainant
2) Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd.,
4th floor, Dakha House 18/17, WEA Karol Bagh,
New Delhi – 110 005.
3) Pradeep Cell Service, Rep. by its Proprietor Pradeep,
S/o Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 30 years, Business,
Resident of D.No. 13/527, Light Palem Center,
Proddatur Town & Mandal, Kadapa District.
1) Copy was made ready on :
2) Copy was dispatched on :
3) Copy of delivered to parties :
B.V.P - - -
