Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/32/2014

Saragadam Bhanu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Spice Online Retail Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Saragadam Bhanu (Inperson)

27 Sep 2014

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:28-01-2014 

                                                                                                Date of Order:27-09-2014

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:      

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

     President (FAC)  

                                2. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                    Male Member

 

                        Saturday, the 27^th day of September, 2014.

                             CONSUMER CASE No.32/2014

Between:-

Sri Saragadam Bhanu, son of S. Srinivasa Rao,

Hindu, aged 24 years, resident of D.No.58-24-72,

Butchirajupalem,  N.A.D Kotha Road,

Visakhapatnam.

                                                                                        ….. Complainant

And:-

1.Spice Online Retail Private Limited, rep. by its

   Authorized Signatory C/o PIBCO Limited

   Basement, Unj sons, No.2 Kalkaji Industrial

   Area, New Delhi-110019.

2.Jaina Marketing and Associates,

    Importing and Marketing, No.245 Santnagar,

    East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065, represented

    by its Manager,.

3.Sri Sai Nadh Enterprises, rep. by its

   Authorized Signatory, Authorized Dealer and

   Service Centre, D.No.53-2304, Chaitanyanagar,

   Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam.

                                                                                      …  Opposite Parties

                     

This case coming on 26.09.2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri        S. Bhanu appeared in person for the Complainant and Opposite Parties being exparte and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

        (As per Smt. K. Saroja Honourable President (FAC) on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant purchased a mobile hand set Karbonn A9+ (black) with IMEI  No.911211901710112 with Warranty for one year for a sum of Rs.6,990/- from the Opposite Parties under Invoice No.31810 dated 14.02.2013.  The 1^st Opposite Party is the Central Office and the 2^nd Opposite Party is the manufacturer of mobile hand set and the 3^rd Opposite Party is the Authorized Dealer and Service Centre of Visakhapatnam.   As the mobile phone did not functioned properly, the Complainant approached number of times to the 3^rd Opposite Party for rectification.   On 08.01.2014 the mobile phone completely damaged and it was inspected by the 3^rd Opposite Party, who noted that defects in the said mobile phone “hanging, automatic restart, and Battery were discharging very fast etc”., and retained the said mobile phone  with the 3^rd Opposite Party and also issued call report dated 8.1.2014 vide Sl. No.39.   The Complainant approached the 3^rd Opposite Party after 2 days and requested the 3^rd Opposite Party to return the mobile phone, but the 3^rd Opposite Party did not rectify it, and gave it to the Complainant.   Inspite of many requests made by the Complainant, the 3^rd Opposite Party did not rectify the defects as stated above and handed over the mobile hand set to the Complainant .   Finally the 3^rd Opposite Party threw the hand set on the face of the Complainant without rectifying any repairs in the said mobile phone and gave it to the Complainant.   Hence, this Complaint.

 

2.       a) to direct the Opposite Parties to replace a new mobile phone in place of damaged phone or to refund the cost of same a sum of Rs.6,990/- with interest at 18% p.a. from date of purchase i.e., 14.2.2013 till the date of payment;   

          b) to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the damages for the gross deficiency of service caused by the Opposite Parties;

          c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards expenses and litigation charges;    

          d) for such other relief or reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.

           

3.       The Opposite Parties did not appear before this Forum.   Hence, they were set exparte and remained exparte. 

 

4.       At the time of enquiry, the Complainant filed affidavit as well as written arguments to support his contention.

 

5.       Heard the Complainant.   Ex.A1 and A2 are marked for the Complainant.

 

 

 

6.       The fact shown from the Ex.A1 is that the Complainant purchased the alleged mobile phone on 15.02.2013.     Ex.A2 reveals that the Complainant handed over the mobile phone to the 3^rd Opposite Party dated 8.01.2014.   The 3^rd Opposite Party technician noted the problem in the hand set as “hanging, automatic restart, and battery were discharging very fast etc”.    The 3^rd Opposite Party returned the hand set and stated that PCB damaged no warranty, the 3^rd Opposite Party did not rectify the problem as reported by the Complainant or gave the new mobile phone.

 

7.       The point that would arise for determination in the case is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

 

8.         After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the 3^rd Opposite Party noted on the call report the problem reported as “hanging, automatic restart, and battery were discharging very fast”.    The 3^rd Opposite Party without rectifying defects in the said mobile phone returned the hand set to the Complainant stating that the PCB damaged no warranty.  Though the hand set is within the warranty period, the 3^rd Opposite Party did not rectify the defects in the mobile phone and returned it as PCB is damaged.   It is bounden duty of the Opposite Parties, whenever the problem come within the warranty period they have to rectify the problem or replace the new piece or refund the amount as paid by the Complainant.   In the present complaint, the Opposite Parties did not appear even after notices have sent to them.   It amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2.   The case against the 3^rd Opposite Party is dismissed as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 3^rd Opposite Party who is a service centre.   The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 have liability to pay reliefs asked by the Complainant as they were manufacturer and central office of the said mobile phone.   Hence, the Complainant is entitled to Rs.6,990/- with suitable interest, some compensation and costs too.

 

9.       In the result, this Complaint is allowed directing the Opposite Parties 1 and 2: a) to refund an amount of Rs.6,990/- (Rupees six thousand nine hundred and ninety only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from 08.01.2014 to till the date of actual realization, and to pay b) a compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and 3) Costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the Complainant.   Time for compliance, one month. 

 

          However, the case against the 3^rd Opposite Party is dismissed.   No costs.

 

          The Complainant is directed to handover the alleged mobile hand set to the Opposite Parties after compliance of this order.

 

          Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this 27^th day of September, 2014.

 

Sd/-                                                                                     Sd/-

Male Member                                                                           President

                                     

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	15.02.2013	Retail Invoice	Photo copy
Ex.A02	08.01.2014s	Call Report issued by the 3rd OP	Original

For the Opposite Parties:-

 

                                                -Nil-

Sd/-                                                                                              Sd/-

Male Member                                                                              President