Between:
Sri J.Bheemasenarao,S/o Venkata Ramana Murthy, aged 43 years, Hindu, Advocate, Gurachari Street, D.No.19-2-15, Vizianagaram.
...Complainant
And
1.The Corporate Manager, Univer Cell Telecommunications India Private Limited, No.281, T.T.K.Road, Alwarpet, Chennai -600 018 & Others.
2.Authorised Dealer cum Agent, Univer Cell Telecommunications India Private Limited, Dr.No.17-2-7, A.G.Road, Near Three Lanthers Junction, Vizianagaram – 2.
3.The Manager, Soni Ericsson Mobile Communications(India) Private Limited, 4th floor, Dakha House.18/17, Imported Office, Wea,Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110005.
Opposite Parties
This case is coming on for hearing before us in the presence of Sri J.Bheemasenarao, Advocate for the Complainant and O.P’s 1 to 3 called absent having stood over for consideration the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
AS PER SRI T.SRIRAMA MURTHY,PRESIDENT
This is the complaint filed U/s-12 of C.P.Act seeking the relief to direct the OP’s to replace the defective mobile phone of SONY ERICSSON No.W1501 with new piece or to refund the cost of the cell amounting to Rs.6,500/- with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., from 04.07.2011 till the date of realization and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and also to pay costs on the following averments:-
The complainant purchased the mobile phone of SONY ERICSSON bearing no.W1501 from 2nd OP for an amount of Rs.6,500/- on 19.05.2011 with warranty of one year from the date of purchase. The said mobile phone has worked properly for a period of 2 months and thereafter it started giving trouble upon which the complainant approached the 2nd OP and informed about the defects of the cell and to effect repair or replace the said phone. The 2nd OP asked the complainant to approach customer care center i.e., Nookambica Electronics situated at Visakhapatnam. The complainant along with his brother-in-law went to the above said customer care center on 04.07.2011 and handed over the mobile phone to repair it. In the said care center some repairs were done to the cell phone and the same was returned to the complainant two days later. The phone worked till 05.01.2012 and again started giving trouble to the complainant. The complainant again approached the 2nd OP as well as the customer care center to ascertain the nature of defect in the cell. The 2nd OP and the men working at the care center told the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the cell upon which the complainant asked the 2nd OP to replace the said defective mobile phone as there is warranty up to 19.05.2012. Though the complainant approached the 2nd OP as well as the care center to get the cell repaired they did not respond to his request. The complainant issued a notice dated 09.01.2012 to the OP’s stating about the defects in the cell and demanded them to refund Rs.6,500/- with costs but of no avail. Since the complainant could not enjoy the cell and as he was made to run around the shop of 2nd OP and care center he suffered mental agony and financial loss. As there is deficiency in service on the part of OP’s the complainant is constrained to file the complaint. The OP’s did not appear in this Forum inspite of service of notices. To prove complainant’s case he filed his evidence affidavit and got marked exhibits A1 to A4.
Perused the material placed on record and heard the complainant’s counsel.
Now the point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP’s and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for.
The learned complainant who is an advocate has contended that he purchased mobile phone for consideration and as the same did not work properly he approached the OP’s 1 and 2 with a request to get it repaired and as the OP’s did not get the defects removed from the cell he was constrained to file the complaint in this Forum.
To prove that he has purchased the mobile phone he filed the cash bill dated 19.05.2011 and got the same marked as Exhibit A1. As seen from its contents it is clear that he purchased mobile phone for a sum of Rs.6,500/- on dated 19.05.2011 from the 2nd OP. Exhibit A2 is the warranty card dated 19.05.2011 issued by 2nd OP. As seen from its contents it is manifest that the warranty of the said cell is for one year from the date of purchase. As per complainant the said mobile phone worked for a period of 2 months and thereafter it started giving trouble as it did not function properly upon which he approached 2nd OP who advised him to take the cell to the customer care center situated in Visakhapatnam and though the cell was given to the said care center, the defect in the cell could not be totally rectified. It is further averred that the cell worked till 05.01.2012 and as the same again given trouble he approached the 2nd OP as well as customer care center to get it repaired but of no avail. As seen from the pleadings and evidence the complainant issued a notice dated 09.01.2012 to the OP’s stating that the mobile cell started giving trouble and though the same was taken to care center the defect was not removed and as the 2nd OP given warranty to the said mobile for a period of one year, the OP’s are bound to get the defect removed from the cell or to refund price of the cell to the complainant. Exhibit A4 is the postal acknowledgement and the same is filed in the Forum to show that the notice issued by the complainant was served upon them. The OP’s having received the said notices did not give any reply to the same. Even after receipt of notice from this Forum the OP’s did not choose to contest the matter. Hence the contents of the complaint, documents filed on behalf of complainant and the Affidavit evidence are remained uncontroverted. During pendency of the case the cell was sent to analyst i.e. Harika Mobiles for analysis. After examining the mobile phone, the said Harika Mobiles submitted its report stating there is manufacturing defect due to installation of low capacity board call receiver and touch pad and as the total board is short and is damaged the same is not fit for repair. In view of the contents of the complaint, evidence affidavit and analyst report it is clear that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile phone and the same cannot be rectified. Since the OP’s did not rectify the defect in the cell, though it was produced before 2nd OP with in warranty period it can safely be concluded that there is deficiency in service on their part.
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the OP’s to pay Rs.6,500/- (Rupees Six Thousand and Five Hundred only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of repayment of the above said sum to the complainant or to replace the defective mobile phone with a new piece and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) towards damages for causing mental agony and to pay Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) towards the costs of complaint. The OP’s are directed to comply this order within one month from today.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 27th day of April, 2015.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
C.C.No.25 / 2012
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant:- For opposite parties:-
PW 1 RW1 & RW2
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Compainant:-
Ex.A-1 Cash Bill No.0866171 dt.19.05.2011 for Rs.6,500/-
issued by 2nd O.P. in-favour of complainant bearing IMEI
No.355717040057481 Sony Ericcion W1501.
Ex.A-2 Warranty Card dt.19.05.2011 issued by 2nd O.P.
Ex.A-3 09.01.2012 Office copy of legal notice issued by
complainant to O.P’s.
Ex.A-4 Three postal acknowledgements from O.P’s 1 to 3.
For OP’s –NIL-
President
