Date of filing:17.2.2014
Date of Disposal:17.4.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N.TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014.
C.C.No.45 OF 2014.
Between :
Sri N.Rajesh, S/o Satyanarayana, Hindu, 24 years, Plot No.46, LIC Colony, Saipuram Colony, One Centre, Gollapudi, Krishna District.
….. Complainant.
And
1. Sun Trading & Marketing Services, Rep., by its Authorized Person, D.No.40-1-147, M.G.Road, Vijayawada – 520 010.
2. Pranak Electronics (Sony Authorized Service Centre), Rep., by its Authorized Person, Amar Bhavan Complex, 40-6-4A, Opp.Boyapati Building, Kanhari Road, Vijayawada – 520 010.
3. Sony Mobile Communications (India) Pvt., Ltd., Rep., by its Authorized Person, A-31, 2nd Floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, India.
…..Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 2.4.2014 in the presence of Sri D.Anjaneya Prasad, Counsel for complainant and opposite parties remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S.Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to replace the cell phone C2004/XPERIA M/DS/White, IMEI No.358098052174705 of the same company with a new one in working condition or to return the amount of Rs.14,490/- to the complainant with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization, to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and for other reliefs.
1. The brief facts of the case which lead to filing the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Mobile phone i.e. Sony C2004/XPERIA M/DS/White along with another cell phone Sony XPERIA M DS/PURPLE from the 1st opposite party on 7.11.2013 under invoice No.962591 for a sum of Rs.14,490/- each and he paid total sum of Rs.28,980/- which includes VAT charges. He paid Rs.17000/- by way of cash and Rs.11,800/- by way of credit card. The said phones are covered for a period of one year warranty. While so, from the date of purchase, the cell phone i.e. Sony C2004/XPERIA M/DS/White was not working with software problem and the said cell phone was hanging. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party and as per the 1st opposite party direction, the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party servicing center on 22.11.2013 and handed over the same for servicing under job sheet No.W113112201470 and the 2nd opposite party returned the cell phone on 23.11.2013. But again the said cell phone was not working with a problem of hanging and the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party. But the 2nd opposite party refused to receive the cell phone for servicing for the reasons best known to them. The complainant after several times wandering around the opposite parties 1 and 2, got issued a legal notice dt.28.12.2013 to the opposite parties 1 to 3 to replace the said cell phone. The opposite parties 1 to 3 received the said notice and the 3rd opposite party issued a reply on 17.1.2014 requesting the complainant to hand over the cell phone to 2nd opposite party. Accordingly the 2nd opposite party received the said cell phone vide Job Sheet No.W114012400691, dt.24.1.2014. But till today the 2nd opposite party did not rectify the problem and did not return the same to the complainant. Hence, the complainant is constrained to file the present complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties 1 to 3. The opposite parties 1 to 3 remained absent.
3. The complainant filed his affidavit reiterating the material averments of his complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. None is examined on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3 and no document is marked on their behalf.
4. Heard the complainant and perused the record.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in selling defective mobile set to the complainant?
- If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for
POINT NO.1:-
6. On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavit and documents), the admitted facts are that the complainant purchased a Mobile phone i.e. Sony C2004/XPERIA M/DS/White (subject cell phone) along with another cell phone Sony XPERIA M DS/PURPLE from the 1st opposite party on 7.11.2013 under invoice No.962591 for a sum of Rs.14,490/- each. Ex.A1 cash memo discloses the said fact. As seen from Ex.A1, the complainant paid Rs.11,800/- by way of credit card and Rs.17,000/- by way of cash. According to the complainant, the said cell phone has one year warranty period. It is not in dispute that the said mobile set was manufactured by 3rd opposite party as the 3rd opposite party got issued reply to the notice of complainant. The grievance of the complainant is that the said phone was stopped working from the date of purchase with hanging problem and on 22.11.2013 he approached the 1st opposite party and on his direction, the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party authorized service center for repairs and handed over the same under Ex.A2 job sheet, wherein it is clearly mentioned the problem as ‘hanging’. According to complainant, the 2nd opposite party handed over the cell phone on 23.11.2013 by stating that the defect was rectified. But again the cell phone was not working properly and the complainant wandered around the opposite parties 1 and 2 for repairs. Subsequently having vexed with the attitude of opposite parties, the complainant got issued Ex.A3 legal notice to the opposite parties and the 3rd opposite party issued a reply under Ex.A4 requesting the complainant to hand over the set to 2nd opposite party for repairs. Accordingly the complainant handed over the same to 2nd opposite party under Ex.A5 job sheet on 24.1.2014. But so far the 2nd opposite party did not rectify the problem and did not return the same. To disprove the said allegations, the opposite parties have not filed any version or put forth any evidence even after receipt of notices. As such the allegations remained unchallenged. Unless the opposite parties 1 to 3 made their appearance and put forth their version whether they have rectified the defect or returned the cell phone, this Forum has no option except to draw an adverse inference that there is no defence for the opposite parties 1 to 3. Further a perusal of Ex.A2 discloses that on 22.11.2013 itself i.e. within 15 days from the date of purchase, the complainant handed over the set to 2nd opposite party for repairs. Further the opposite party vide Ex.A5 reply notice requested the complainant to hand over the set to 2nd opposite party. As such the set is within the warranty period. Admittedly the 2nd opposite party is authorized service agent of 3rd opposite party and the 1st opposite party is only a retailer. Perusal of record discloses that the defect in the cell phone is not rectified by the authorized service agent and as such it is clear that the said set has manufacturing defect. In view of the above circumstances, it is clear that there is deficiency on the part of opposite parties 2 and 3 who are authorized service center and manufacturer of subject cell phone. So far as the 1st opposite party is concerned, the 1st opposite party is only seller of mobile phone manufactured by the 3rd opposite party . As such we find no deficiency in service on the part of 1st opposite party. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of complainant and against the opposite parties 2 and 3. Further according to complainant, the said cell phone is with the 2nd opposite party itself.
7. According to Section 2(1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act any fault or imperfection or short coming in its quality, potency, performance or standard which is required to be maintained by under any Law for the time being in force or as is claimed by a trader in any manner whatever in relation to any goods comes within the mischief of defective goods. As per Section 14(1)(a) & (b) the buyer is entitled to remedy by way of either removing the defect or by way of replacing the goods with similar description or by way of return of the price or charges paid by the consumer.
POINT No.2:-
8. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly against opposite parties 2 and 3 and dismissed against the 1st opposite party. Opposite parties 2 and 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.14,490/- (Fourteen thousand four hundred and ninety rupees only) to the complainant towards cost of the cell phone and also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (One thousand rupees only) towards compensation and Rs.1000/- (One thousand rupees only) towards costs. The time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order and afterwards, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. The other claims of the complainant are hereby dismissed. As the cell phone is with the 2nd opposite party, there is no order as to the delivery of cell phone by complainant.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 17th day of April, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 N.Rajesh None
Complainant
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 07.11.2013 Photocopy of Retail Invoice/Cash Memo/Bill/Tax Invoice for Rs.28,980/-.
Ex.A.2 23.11.2013 Photocopy of job sheet issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A.3 28.12.2013 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.4 16.01.2013 Letter from the 3rd opposite party office at Chennai to the complainant.
Ex.A.5 24.01.2014 Photocopy of Service Job sheet.
Ex.A.6 . . Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A.7 . . Postal acknowledgement.
On behalf of the opposite parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT
