Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/52/2017

M.Ramesh, S/o Balaramaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorized Signatory, B.New Mobiles Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

G.Guru Prasad

20 Jul 2018

ORDER

 

 

                                                                                                                                             Filing Date:- 25-10-2017                                                                                                                                                                                     Order Date:- 20-07-2018

 

                                          BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: -    Sri. T. Anand, President (FAC)

                                                                                               Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

C.C.No.52/2017

Between

M.Ramesh, S/o. Balaramaiah,

Hindu, aged about 42 years,

Residing at D.No.246/D,

S.N. Puram, Tirupati.                                                                      …. Complainant

 

And

1. The Authorized Signatory,

B.New Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 118,

D.No. 10-14-575, Central Park,

 Tirupati, Chittoor District.  

   

2. The Authorized Signatory,

MI Mobile Service Centre,

No. 10-15-56/A, K.K. Layout,

Tirupati, Chittoor District.

 

3. The Authorized Signatory,

The Rising Star Mobile India Pvt. Ltd.,

No. 380, Belerica Road, Sri City,

Siddam Agraharam, Varadaiahpalem Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                …. Opposite parties

                         

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 11.07.2018 and upon perusing the complaint, chief affidavit, written version, written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.G.GuruPrasad, counsel for the complainant and Sri.G.Rajesh Babu, counsel for the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No. 2 &3 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&14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties  1 to 3 and prayed this Forum for the following reliefs i) directing the opposite parties to replace the new smart phone in the place of defective smart phone or to refund the cost of the phone of Rs.9,699/- along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- for causing mental agony and deficiency in service and to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of the complaint. 

        2. The brief facts of the case are:-  the complainant purchased the mobile phone XIAOMI Redmi-4 3+32GB Gold IMEI 866248034689107 for Rs.9,699/- on 23.08.2017 from the opposite party No.1 which is manufactured by opposite party No.3 under cash invoice bill. The said mobile phone got warranty period of one year. One week after purchase the said instrument started giving trouble of overheating, hence he approached the opposite party No.2 who is the authorized service centre of the said mobile phone and handed over the cell phone to the opposite party No.2 for repair on 01.09.2017 and the opposite party No.2 returned the said cell phone  to him on 03.09.2017 by stating that the problem was rectified. But the problem was not rectified, hence he again entrusted the said cell phone to opposite party No.2 which is the authorized service centre on 05.09.2017 for repair but no service record was issued to the complainant and the mobile phone was returned to him on the same day without rectifying the problem. Again the complainant entrusted the said cell phone to opposite party No.2 for repair on 08.09.2017  but the said cell phone was returned to him on 11.09.2017 by stating that board and software of the said smart phone is changed but the problem was not rectified and the opposite party No.2 stated that, it is not possible to repair again. After repeated requests made by the complainant the opposite parties failed to rectify the defect in the said cell phone. Hence finally he got issued legal notice on 18.09.2017 to the opposite parties        1 to 3 but after receipt of the notices they failed to repair the same. Hence he filed the present complaint.

        3. The opposite party No.2 and 3 remained absent and set exparte.

                              4.  The opposite party no.1 filed the written version by denying the averments made by the complainant in the complaint and further stated that  there is no priviity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party No.1 as they have  acted as a mediator between manufacturer and the purchaser and delivered the mobile under invoice No.GSTT/3166, dated 23.08.2017 and  in the  said invoice it was clearly mentioned in the terms and conditions, as per  term No.1 “ warranty will be provided by the authorized service centre only”.  Hence after delivery of the product, manufacturer or his authorized  service centre are only responsible if any manufacturing defect will arise.  Hence they are not responsible for the defects as stated by the complainant and prayed this forum to dismiss the complaint against them.

       5. The complainant filed evidence on affidavit and got marked Ex:A1 to A7. On behalf of opposite party No.1 one S. Masthan Valli, S/o. S.Allah Basha, authorized Signatory, doing business filed his chief affidavit and no documents were filed on behalf of him. Both the complainant and opposite party No.1 filed their respective written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

       6. Now the points for consideration is: -

         Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties 1 to 3? If so, to what extent, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought?

 

       7.Point No (i):-   There is no dispute regarding the purchase of the mobile phone from opposite party No.1. As per the contention of the complainant, after observing the defect in the mobile phone, he approached opposite party No.2 which is the authorized service centre on 01.09.2017 and entrusted to them for repair and in order to prove the said contention the complainant marked Ex.A3 service record issued by opposite party No.2. The above mobile phone was returned by them on 03.09.2017, but the problem was not rectified.  Again on 08.09.2017 under Ex A4 he entrusted the mobile to opposite party No.2, but the said phone was returned to the complainant without effecting the repairs as it could not be rectified, which clearly shows that the said mobile is having manufacturing defect  which  could not be rectified by their own authorized service personnel .  Hence as per Ex:A2   it  is seen that the  said mobile phone is having warranty period of one year and in the present case also the problem arose with in short period of one week after purchase  i.e. within warranty period .

                   The opposite parties 2 & 3 remained exparte even after receipt of the summons issued by this forum. Even there are any bonafides  on their part. They might have given the reply notice to the notice issued by the complainant under ExA5.  But in this particular case the opposite parties 2 &3 attended before this forum to show their bonafides nor have they taken any steps to settle the dispute ,which is nothing but deficiency in service on part of opposite parties 1 to 3  as  they sold the defective mobile to the complainant and failed to rectify the defect. The opposite party No.1, who is the retailer sold the mobile phone to the complainant, appeared before this forum and filed the written version and stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No.1 as they will act as mediator between manufacturer and purchaser and further contended that, any problem arises,  it must be solved by opposite party No.2 who is an authorized service personnel. But here the opposite party No.1 being the seller cannot escape from their liability by simply throwing blame on manufacturers and service personnel, as they received the consideration. It is obligation of the opposite party No.1 to take steps to resolve the problem whenever the consumers approaches them with problem by duly communicating to the opposite parties 2 and 3. But they failed to do so.   Hence under the above circumstances we are of the opinion that there is clear deficiency in service on part of opposite parties.1 to 3 towards the complainant. By the inaction of the opposite parties the complainant was deprived of using the mobile phone. Hence in the above circumstances the complainant is entitled for the refund of the cost of the mobile along with interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of the purchase i.e 23.08.2017 till realization.

                    In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to refund the cost of the mobile of Rs.9,699/- (Rupees nine thousand six hundred and ninety nine only) along with interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of the purchase i.e. 23.08.2017 till realization. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are further directed to pay Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four 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 litigation expenses. 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.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) also shall carry interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of this order till realization.

                    Typed by the Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open forum this the 20^th day of July, 2018. 

               Sd/-                                                                                                         Sd/-

      Lady Member                                                                                         President (FAC)

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: M. Ramesh (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: S. Masthan Valli (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of B New Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Invoice for Rs.9,699/- issued by the opposite party No.1 towards purchase of Smart Phone. Dt: 23.08.2017.
	Original copy of Warranty Card issued by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant.
	Photo copy of Service Order issued by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant for the receipt of smart phone with reported problem (Original service record was taken by the opposite party No.2 at the time of delivery of the smart phone to the complainant). Dt: 01.09.2017.
	Service record issued by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant for the receipt of smart phone with reported problem. Dt: 08.09.2017.
	Office copy of Legal Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties No.1 to 3 with postal receipts. Dt: 18.09.2017.
	Postal acknowledgement cards in original of opposite party No.1 to 3.
	Reply Legal Notice issued by the O.P.No.1 to the complainant. Dt: 18.10.2017.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

NIL

 

                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                            President (FAC)

 

 

                                                              // TRUE COPY //

                                                               // BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                                                                  Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to: 1) The Complainant,

                  2) The opposite parties 1to 3.