Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/28/2016

Sri Chethan S/o Late K.P.Ramakrishniah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Signatory,Thippeswamy Communications - Opp.Party(s)

G.Sreepathi

14 Sep 2016

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON : 21/04/2016

     DISPOSED ON: 14/09/2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 28/2016 DATED:  14th SEPTEMBER 2016

 

PRESENT :-     SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH      PRESIDENT                                      B.A., LL.B.,

                        SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY             MEMBER

                                         B.A., LL.B.,                   

COMPLAINANT	Chethan S/o Late K.P. Ramakrishnaiah, 28 Years, C/o Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Uduvalli Post, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. G. Sreepathi, Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTY	The Authorized Signatory, Sri.Thippeswamy Communications, Gireesha Complex, Main Road, Hiriyur-577598, Chitradurga.   (In Person)

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH. PRESIDENT.

ORDER

The complainant has filed a complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the OP for a direction to the OP to return the cost of HUAWEI Power-Fi Broad Band with interest at 12% p.a, Rs.15,000/- towards compensation, Rs.15,000/- towards cost and damages and Rs.1,000/- towards legal notice.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that, on 08.06.2015 he purchased HUAWEI Power-Fi mobile broad band speed up to 14.4 Mbps by paying Rs.2,000/- including vat of Rs.104/- from the OP.  But the actual price of the said mobile broad band was Rs.1,725/-.  The OP has charged Rs.275/- in excess which is an unfair trade practice for making wrongful gain.  It is further submitted that, the said HUAWEI Power-Fi had a warranty period of one year from the date of purchase but, the same was not working for the last three months.  Complainant approached OP several times and requested to set right the problem from January 2016 for which, OP failed to give positive reply and tried to escape from the liability on one or the other reason.  Hence, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs so, he sustained financial loss and mental agony and etc., and prayed for allow the complaint.

 

3. On service of notice OP appeared before this Forum through its Manager and filed version admitting about the purchase of HUAWEI Power-Fi by the complainant on 08.06.2015 after due instructions with respect to the service terms and conditions according to the company warranty policy.  They told the customers that, if the customer is ready to get service from the seller, they can provide service only when customer give a time to fix problem but, the complainant never approached them.  It is further submitted that, complainant has not given a correct picture of facts and circumstances of the issue.  It is further submitted that, they are having exchange policy from the manufacturer for defective product within 7 days from the date of purchase beyond that, there will be no exchange.  They are ready to provide only a service if the complainant approach them.  The complainant has not visited the authorized service center and even after their reply to the notice, complainant has not approached the OP for resolve the problem for HUAWEI Power-Fi modem nor approached the manufacturer.  They are not doing any unfair trade practice and they are selling the product under below MRP and the price fluctuates in online in some limited period offers.  In the product HUAWEI Power-Fi they are getting income of hardly Rs.150/- and the complainant can claim damages from the company if, the company fails to give the service and the complainant has to approach the company for any such claims covered under warranty and OP is only a seller and there is no deficiency of service on its part.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.     

        4. Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and documents are marked at Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6. 

5.     On behalf of OP one Sri.Chandrakanth, the Manager examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence but, not produced any documents and addressed its arguments even the time has been given.   

 

        6. Arguments of complainant heard.

 

7. Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:

 

Point No.1:- Whether the complaint proves that, the OP has played unfair trade practice and committed deficiency of service and he is entitled for compensation as stated in his complaint?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

 

        8. Our findings on the above points are as follows:

 

        Point No.1:- Partly Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per the final order.

 

                                        ::REASONS::

 

9. Point No. 1:- It is not in dispute that, on 08.06.2015 complainant has purchased HUAWEI Power-Fi mobile broad band speed up to 14.4 Mbps by paying Rs.2,000/- and the same had a warranty period of one year from the date of purchase. But the actual price of the said mobile broad band was Rs.1,725/-.  The OP has charged Rs.275/- in excess.  But, within a span few days the said HUAWEI Power-Fi mobile broad band was having a manufacturing defects and failed to work properly.   Complainant approached OP several times and requested to set right the problem but, the OP gave an untenable reply and tried to escape from the liability on one or the other reason. 

 

10.  In support of his contentions,  complainant has relied on his affidavit evidence in which he has reiterated the contents of complaint.  Complainant has also relied on documents like copy of Tax Invoice dated 08.06.2015 which shows that, the complainant has purchased HUAWEI POwer-Fi Mobile  Broad Band for Rs.2,000/- from the OP marked as Ex.A-1, Copy of item details with warranty details of the said product marked as Ex.A-2, Copy of legal notice dated 22.03.2016 marked as Ex.A-3, Postal receipt marked as Ex.A-4, Postal Acknowledgment marked as Ex.A-5, Reply to the legal notice marked as Ex.A-6 and they are not in dispute. 

 

11.   On the other hand OP filed version admitting about the purchase of HUAWEI Power-Fi by the complainant on 08.06.2015 with the service terms and conditions according to the company warranty.  The complainant has not given a correct picture of facts and circumstances of the issue.  and they are having exchange policy from the manufacturer for defective product within 7 days from the date of purchase and ready to provide only a service if the complainant approach them.  But, the complainant has not visited the authorized service center or this OP for resolve the problem for HUAWEI Power-Fi modem nor approached the manufacturer.  They are selling the product under below MRP and the price fluctuates in online in some limited period offers and the complainant can claim damages from the company for any such claims covered under warranty and OP is only a seller and there is no deficiency of service on its part.

 

12.   We have carefully gone through the records submitted by complainant. It is seen that, the complainant has purchased HUAWEI Power-Fi Mobile Broad Band speed up to 14.4 Mbps by paying Rs.2,000/- which is evident from Ex.A-1 Tax Invoice.  As per Ex.A-2, the warranty to the said product is for one year.  But within a span of few days, the said product was giving problem.  Thereafter, complainant approached the OP to set right the problem but, OP failed to set right the same and tried to escape from its liability.    Whenever the OP sells the products and the warranty period is in force, its duty is to set-right the defects occurred in the said product sold to the customer.   The contention taken by the OP that, it is only a seller and the complainant has to approach the manufacturer to settle the claim made by the complainant is not acceptable.  The OP has not produced any documents to show that, there is no deficiency of service on its part.  Moreover the OP has not disputed about purchase of HUAWEI Power-Fi Mobile Broad Band by the complainant by paying Rs.2,000/-.  Such being the case, the duty of OP is to set right the defects in the said product but, the OP failed to attend the said defects and cure the same.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, OP has played an unfair trade practice by selling defective mobile broad band and committed deficiency of service in settling the claim of the complainant.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for compensation as claimed.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly Affirmative to the complainant.

 

13.   Point No.2:- For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following.

ORDER

        It is ordered that the complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

 

It is ordered that, the OP is directed to pay Rs.2,000/-, the cost of HUAWEI POWER-Fi mobile broad band, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony in all a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant along with interest at 6% p.a from the date of complaint till realization. 

 

It is further ordered that, the OP is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards the costs of this proceedings to the complainant. 

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to comply the above said order within two months. 

 

        (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 14/09/2016 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Complainant by filing affidavit evidence taken as PW-1

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:

                                                -Nil-

On behalf of OP one Shivakumar, Manager by filing affidavit evidence taken as DW-1.

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

 -Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Copy of Tax Invoice dated 08.06.2015
02	Ex-A-2:-	Copy of item details with warranty details
03	Ex-A-3:-	Copy of legal notice dated 22.03.2016
04	Ex-A-4:-	Postal receipts
05	Ex-A-5:-	Postal Acknowledgments
06	Ex-A-6:-	Reply to the legal notice

 

Documents marked on behalf of Opponent:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT

Rhr.