This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing in the presence of Sri A. Yugandhar Rao, Advocate for complainant and of Sri. K. Ravi Kumar, Advocate for opposite party No.2; Notice of opposite party No.1 & 3 served called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)
This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased Samsung 3312 Model Mobile phone on 16-10-2012 from the opposite party No.1 for an amount of Rs.3,800/- and also purchased a cell phone guard for an amount of Rs.150/- to protect the mobile phone from physical damages. The said mobile phone was started giving troubles within three months from the date of purchase. On 11-02-2013, suddenly, it was switched off while talking with others. Upon which, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.1 suggested to approach the opposite party No.2 for availment of services. Accordingly, the complainant brought the cell phone to the service centre of opposite party No.2 and kept the same with them for two days for rectification of problems, the opposite party No.2 returned the same without any rectification by stating that the problem was due to defect in the Mother Board and suggested to purchase a new Mother Board on costs and issued a job card by mentioning as no warranty. The complainant further submitted that to avoid their liability, the opposite party No.1 was not issued any warranty at the time of purchase of mobile, when the complainant asked for warranty card, the opposite party No.1 replied that the bill itself is sufficient for availment of services, the complainant alleges, the attitude of opposite parties 1 & 2 is amounts of deficiency of service, therefore, issued legal notice on 19-03-2013. After receipt of legal notice, the opposite party No.2 informed the counsel for complainant to bring the cell phone to the service centre for further verification. Accordingly, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2, instead of providing services; the opposite party No.2 insulted the complainant. Due to which, he suffered a lot and constrained to file the present complaint by praying to direct the opposite parties to refund the cost of the mobile phone @ Rs.3,800/- and to pay an amount of Rs.46,200/- towards mental agony and costs.
2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed the following documents, those were marked as Exhibits A1 to A3.
Ex.A1:- Bill dt. 16-10-2012 for Rs.3,800/-
Ex.A2:- Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.NIL. with postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A3:- Photocopy of Service Copy, dt. 11-02-2013.
3. On being noticed, the counsel for opposite party No. 2 filed Vakalath, but failed to contest the matter in spite of giving sufficient chances. The opposite parties 1 & 3 were called absent despite service of notice.
4. 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:-
5. According to the averments of the complainant and basing on the material on record, it is a fact that the complainant purchased Samsung 3312 mobile phone from the opposite party No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.3,800/- on 16-10-2012, evidence under Exhibit A1. Within 3 months it was started giving troubles and not functioning properly, finally on 11-02-2013 it was switched off, then the complainant rushed to the service centre on suggestions of opposite party No.1, evidence under Exhibit A3. Exhibit A3 is the Job Card, issued by the service centre of opposite party No.3, wherein, the opposite party No.2 mentioned the complaint as ‘Blank display’ and also mentioned as ‘No Warranty’ but it is the case of the complainant that the opposite party No.2 stated that due to the problem in the ‘Mother Board’, the mobile phone was not functioning therefore, suggested to purchase a new ‘Mother Board’ but as per Exhibits A1 and A3, the complainant had purchased Samsung mobile phone on 16-10-2012, within 4 four months i.e. on 11-02-2012 he approached the service centre for repairs, it seems that the alleged problems were arised within 4 months from the date of purchase and as such we opined that the problems were happened within the period of Warranty i.e. within one year from the date of purchase. Though, the opposite party No.2 blindly rejected the services to the complainant and suggested him to purchase a new ‘Mother Board’, which is an essential part in the mobile phone, if there is any problem or defect arose within warranty, it is the duty of the opposite parties to replace the defective part with new one, very particularly, the defect, which is happened in the ‘Mother Board’ the entire unit must be replaced with new one, in case of any mistake or fault on the part of service centre or any one of the opposite parties, they all are liable to provide all services as assured according to the terms of conditions of ‘Warranty’ and ‘Users Manual’. In view of the same the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.
6. In the result the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to replace the defective Samsung Mobile 3312 Model with new one or refund Rs.3,800/- towards costs of the Mobile and also directed to pay Rs.500/- towards costs. The order shall be complied with in 4 weeks from the date of receipt this order.
Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 25th day of July, 2014.
FAC President Member
District Consumer Forum,
Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant and opposite parties: -None-
Exhibits marked for complainant:-
Ex.A1:- Bill dt. 16-10-2012 for Rs.3,800/-
Ex.A2:- Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.NIL.
Ex.A3:- Photocopy of Service Copy, dt. 11-02-2013.
FAC President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam.
