Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/47/2017

Mudumuri Ramadasu, S/o M.C.Eeswarappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd., Head Office for Gionee Mobiles, Rep. by its authorized person - Opp.Party(s)

B.Sekhar Babu

28 Mar 2018

ORDER

         

 

                                                                                                                                                            Filing Date: 19-09-2017                                                                                                                                                                 Order Date: 28-03-2018

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                                                             Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

 

C.C.No.47/2017

Between

Madumuri Ramadasu, S/o. M.C. Eeswarappa,

Hindu, Aged about 48 years, Correspondent,

Sri Saraswathi English High School,

Mulakalacheruvu town and Mandal,

Tirupati, Chittoor District.                                                            … Complainant

 

And

1. Syntech Technology Pvt Ltd.,

Head Office for Gionee Mobiles,

Rep. by its Authorized Person,

Located at F-2, Ground Floor,

Mohan – Co-operative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110044.

 

2. Gionee India, Banglore Office,

Rep.by its Managing Person,

Batavia Heritage, 1^st floor, #40,

10^th Cross, Wilson Garden,

Banglore-27.

 

3. S.S.Electronics, rep. by its Propeietor,

No. 29/30, Sri Vinayaka Electronics Plaza,

S.P.Road, 1^st Cross, Bengaluru-560002.

 

4. L & M Technologies,

Rep. by its Head Service  Men,

Authorized Service Center for Gionee Mobiles,

Located at No.7/5/181, Konka Street, Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                              … Opposite parties

 

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 14.03.2018 and upon perusing the complaint, written version, written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of             Sri. B.Sekhar Babu, counsel for the complainant, and opposite parties 1 to 4 are remained exparte having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed by the complainant under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite parties as the cell phone purchased by the complainant was found defective shortly after date of the purchase and in spite of notice they did not respond and rectify the same.

      2. The brief facts of the case are: the complainant purchased the cell phone on 23.06.2016 from opposite party No.3 which is manufactured by opposite party 1 and 2. The said phone got warranty period of one year and the complainant further submits that from the date of the purchase the said cell phone gave trouble of overheating and also delay in charge of battery, and same was informed to the opposite party 3 and 4 within period of 15 days from the date of the purchase and the opposite parties 3 and 4 represented that it is a common problem and it will be rectified after usage of the cell phone for some days. Hence believing their words, the complainant used the said instrument with discomforts like overheating and delay in charging of the battery and quick discharge of battery. The complainant further submits that on 10.01.2017 when he kept the cell phone for charging the said cell phone was blasted with loud noise. When he observed the said cell phone it was almost burnt with smoke smell. Hence he approached the opposite party No.3 in the third week of June, 2017 as the said phone got warranty period of one year and opposite party No.3 gave evasive answers and failed to repair the same and directed to approach Gionee Service centre. Hence the complainant sent the mail on 21.02.2017 vide No.100044765  to the Gionee service centre and after receipt of the said mail the Gionee care asked the complainant to send the  pictures of the said cell phone. Accordingly he sent the pictures of the mobile and there after they directed him to visit authorized service center to rectify the problem. Accordingly on 28.02.2017 the complainant approached opposite party No.4 who is an authorized service centre of the opposite party 1 and 2 to repair the said cell phone. The opposite party No.4 received the mobile phone and issued receipt to the complainant. On 08.03.2017 the complainant received a message from the service centre that the said cell phone will be repaired on chargeable basis and gave estimation for repair charges of Rs.6,198.65/- with extra taxes. Hence the complainant requested the opposite party No.4 to repair the mobile phone with free of charge as the said mobile phone got warranty period of one year. But the opposite parties refused to repair the same. Hence, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 19.03.2017 to the opposite parties calling upon them to replace the new cell phone or to refund the cost of the cell phone of Rs.25,400/- along with interest at 24% p.a. as the cell phone in found defective from the date of the purchase. But after receipt of the said legal notice opposite parties 1 to 3 failed to comply the notice and the notice issued to the opposite party No.4 returned unserved. Hence he filed the present complaint.  

         3.   After receipt of the notices issued by this Forum the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte.

        4.   The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex: A1 to A11 were marked and he filed the written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

       5. Now the points for consideration are:-

              (i)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties towards the complainant?           

             (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?        

             (iii)  To what Relief?

                     6.Point No (i):-    The chief affidavit of the complainant reiterated the contents in the complaint as already pointed out that the opposite parties remained exparte and did not challenge the contentions of the chief affidavit. The contents of the complaint are that the cell phone which was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No.3 gave trouble from the day one of the purchase as overheating, quickly discharge of the battery and also further contended that the above said cell phone was burnt on 10.01.2017 when he was kept for charging. Hence he approached the opposite party No.3 to repair the said cell phone as the problem arosed within a warranty period. With instructions of the opposite party No.3 the complainant gave E-Mail to opposite party No.2 by complaining the defects of the cell phone. As per the instructions of the opposite party No.2 the complainant approached opposite party No.4 who is an authorized service centre of the opposite party No.1 and 2. After examining the said cell phone the opposite party No.4 gave estimation of Rs. 6,198.65/- to repair the said cell phone with extra taxes. When the complainant questioned the service persons to repair the cell phone with free of cost as the said cell phone got warranty period of one year. But the opposite parties refused to do the same which is nothing but deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. Hence he issued a legal notice to opposite parties to refund the cost of the mobile or to repair the said cell phone with free of cost. But after receipt of the notice the opposite parties kept silent and failed to comply the same. Hence he filed the present complaint. After receipt of the notices issued by this Forum the opposite parties remained silent and set exparte.

                    As the complainant has not purchased the cell phone for pleasure and there is also no reason to hold that the complainant has unnecessarily complaining the defect in the cell phone. If so, the opposite parties would have appeared and demonstrated that the cell phone is in perfect condition. As the opposite parties failed to appear and oppose the contentions of the complainant and also the cell phone which was purchased by the complainant  from the opposite parties No.3 which is manufactured by opposite parties   1 and 2 got warranty period of one year. As the complainant purchased the cell phone on 23.06.2016 under Ex:A1 and also as per Ex:A2 it clearly shows that the cell phone got warranty period of one year and Ex:A3 and A4 clearly shows that the complainant made several representations to opposite parties  and also Ex:A7 and Ex:A8 clearly shows that the complainant approached the authorized service centre and they gave estimation slip of Rs. 6,198.65/- to repair the said cell phone. Hence as the opposite parties 1 to 3 failed to appear and oppose the contentions of the complainant and failed to rectify the defects in the cell phone which is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of the opposite parties. Hence, the deficiency in service is hold to be proved. Accordingly this complaint is allowed against opposite parties 1 to 3. Since the opposite parties No.4 is only a service provider who is said to be do services to the cell phone and there is no evidence of any consideration. Hence the complaint against opposite party No.4 is dismissed.

                     7.Point No(ii):-   As per Ex:A1 and A2 invoice dt: 23.06.2016 and warranty card clearly shows that the mobile phone got warranty period of one year and Ex:A3 and A4 clearly shows that the said mobile gave trouble with in short period of purchase and opposite parties 1 to 3 have not rendered their services properly and also not responded properly. It is the duty of the dealers and manufacturers to show some sort of respect towards their customers and to do service up to the satisfaction of the customers. But in this particular case, it clearly shows the negligent attitude of the opposite parties 1 to 3 towards the complainant. In order to gain profits and promote sales, they will show much interest towards sales rather than the service, which leads to unfair trade practice. Hence we are of the opinion that there is clear deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 and the complainant is entitled for the cost of the mobile of Rs.25,400/- along with interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of the purchase i.e. 23.06.2016 till realization and also the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties   1 to 3 and  Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the litigation.

          8.Point (iii):-   In view of our discussions on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties 1 to 3, hence the complaint is allowed.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to refund the cost of the cell phone of Rs.25,400/- (Rupees twenty five thousand four hundred only) along with interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of the purchase  i.e. on 23.06.2016 till realization. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are further directed to comply with the order within six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which, the above said compensation amount of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) also shall carry interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of this order till realization. The complaint against opposite party No.4 is hereby dismissed.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 28^th day of March, 2018.

           Sd/-                                                                                                             Sd/-

    Lady Member                                                                                                         President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Madumuri Ramadasu (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

 Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

NIL

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of Cash/Credit bill No.8599 issued by the 3rd opposite party for purchase of Gionee Marathon M5 Plus Mobile Phone. Dt: 23.06.2016.
	Warranty Card in original.
	Photo copy of complaint made through E-mail to the Gionee Care by the complainant. Dt: 15.02.2017.
	Office copy of Requisition letter to the opposite party No.3 by the complainant. Dt: 16.02.2017.
	Photo copy of reply from Gionee Care through E-mail. Dt: 21.02.2017.
	The pictures of Gionee Marathon M5 Plus Mobile Phone sent to Gionee Care by the complainant through E-mail(Photo copy). Dt: 22.02.2017.
	Served photo copy of Receipt (AP/No.190) given by the opposite party No.4. Dt: 28.02.2017.
	Approx estimation of Rs.6198.65/- given by the Gionee Care through E-mail (Photo copy) to the complainant. Dt: 08.03.2017.
	Office copy of Legal Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Dt: 19.03.2017.
	Postal acknowledgement cards 3 in number from opposite parties No.1 to 3.
	Returned cover and Ack. Due  from the opposite party No.4 to the complainant. Dt: 23.03.2017.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

NIL

 

                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                             President

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant, 

                  2) The Opposite parties 1 to 4.