Present:       1. Sri R. Kiran Kumar, _{B.Sc. LL.M.,} FAC President

                              2. Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, _{B.Sc. B.L.,} Member

(Dated this, the 27^th day of March 2015)

C. C. No.2/2015

Between:

Sri. Kolla Raja Rao, S/o. Suri,

H.No.12-59, Kurivella Complex,

CPI Office Road, Madhira [V] & [M],

Khammam District – 507 203. Telangana State.

Cell No.9908598560                                               ...Complainant

And

1. Sri Sai Books & Cell World, Stationary,

Xerox, Lamination & Spiral Binding, G.P. Complex,

Madhira – 507 203. (Shop Owner cum Celkon Sub Dealer)

2. S.S. Zone, #8-3-207/208/1st Floor,

Opp. Nagabushanam Hospital,

Wyra Road, Khammam Phone No.08742-650505

Authorized Service Center for Celkon.

3. Celkon Impex Pvt. Ltd., 3rd Floor, Block II,

My Home Hub, Hitec City, Madhapur,

Hyderabad – 500 081. Cell No.9052345678

(Celkon Phones – MD)

                                                                       ...Opposite parties

This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; the complainant appeared in person; opposite parties 1 to 3 served 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 mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased Celkon mobile phone, model No.A-107+ on 29-03-2014 for Rs.7,500/- from the opposite party No.1. After three months, started giving troubles due to damage of software, while operating the mobile, displayed in China Language, after that it was disappeared.  Upon which, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2, for services and surrendered the mobile phone on 08-07-2014 for rectification of problems.  The opposite party No.2 repaired the same and returned to the complainant on 11-08-2014.  After two months, the complainant experienced the same problem and as such he again approached the opposite party No.2 and handed over the mobile phone on 11-10-2014.  The opposite party No.2 again repaired the mobile and returned it after one month, even though, the same problems were arose within one day, once again he met with the opposite party No.1 and questioned about the repeated problems, then the opposite party No.2 assured that they will supply a new mobile phone by replacing the defective mobile in case of failing to rectify the defects.  Accordingly, he sent the mobile to the opposite party No.3 for repairs.  After completion of repairs the opposite party No.3 returned the same to the opposite party no.2 but the complainant noticed that its EMI number is changed due to which, he did not receive the same from opposite party No.2 and immediately informed the same to the opposite party No.1, vexed with the attitude of opposite parties he constrained to file the complaint as there is no response from the opposite parties and prayed to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.19,500/- towards total compensation, among which, Rs.7,500/- towards cost of the mobile phone and Rs.9,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/-.    

3.       Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed the following documents, those were marked as Exhibits A1 to A3.

Ex.A1:-  Cash Bill dt.29-03-2014 for Rs.7,500/-.

Ex.A2:- Job Card, dt. 26-11-2014.

Ex.A3:- Job Card dt.11-10-2014.

4.       After registering the complaint, notices were served to the opposite parties, in spite of giving sufficient time they failed to appear 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:-        

According to the contents of complaint and the material on record, it is a fact that the complainant had purchased Celkon A-107+ mobile phone on 29-03-2014 for Rs.7,500/- from the opposite party No.1,  evidenced under Ex.A1.  Ex.A2 & A3 are the Job cards, dt. 11-10-2014 and 26-11-2014, as per exhibits A2 and A3, the problems were mentioned as “Auto off when calling, Auto off when standby and heating problem in MP3 and dead” and according to the contents of the complaint, the mobile phone started giving troubles after 3 months from the date of purchase and the problems were not rectified despite repeated repairs.  Apart from that, the opposite parties neither appeared nor filed any counter even after giving sufficient time.  In view of the above circumstances and basing on the material on record we are of the opinion that the attitude of opposite parties is definitely amounts to deficiency of service, therefore, the opposite parties are liable to replace the defective mobile phone with new one as the problems were not rectified even after repeated repairs i.e. within the period of warranty and as such the point is safely concluded in favour of the complainant.   

6.       In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to replace the defective Celkon Mobile Phone model No.A-107+ with new one or to return the bill amount of Rs.7,500/- to the complainant and cost of Rs.500/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

           Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 27^th day of March, 2015.

                                                  FAC President               Member      

                                           District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

FAC President               Member

     District Consumer Forum, Khammam.