Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/14/2017

T.Lalithamma, W/o T.Subramanyam - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager / Authorized Person, BIG C Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., (Code APZ 111 AE 0032) - Opp.Party(s)

Poola Prabhakar

02 Aug 2017

ORDER

Filing Date: 07.03.2017

Order Date:02.08.2017

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

WEDNESDAY THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.14/2017

 

 

Between

 

 

Smt.T.Lalithamma,

W/o. T.Subramanyam,

Business,

D.No.1-6-775, Indira Nagar,

Tirupati.                                                                                             … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

The Manager / Authorised Person,

BIG ‘C’ Mobiles Pvt. Ltd. (Code-APZ 111 AE 0032),

D.No.10-14-580, Tilak Road,

Near Central Park,

Opp. Municipal Office,

Tirupati – 517 501.                                                                          …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 19.07.17 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Poola Prabhakar, counsel for complainant, and opposite party remained exparte, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Sections –11 and 12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant  against the opposite party for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite party to repair or replace the defective mobile phone with new one or to pay mobile phone cost of Rs.5,300/-, 2) to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and for deficiency in service, and 3) to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-  That the complainant purchased Celkon Mobile (Millennia Hero) Handset bearing IMEI No.911166900392805 from the opposite party on 02.04.2016 for Rs.5,300/- with a warranty of one year. The opposite party also issued invoice bearing No.SI/TPT2/59 dt:02.04.2016 for Rs.5,300/-. As the said phone developed problems such as “over heating, long time charging and tower signal tracing” etc., it was taken to the opposite party. The opposite party replaced the same with a new handset of same company (Celkon) worth Rs.4,100/- bearing IMEI No.911466900408981 under separate invoice bearing No.SI/TPT2/242 dt:06.04.2016 stating that it will work excellently. It also got warranty for one year. The second new handset also started giving some troubles like earlier handset such as “over-heating, charging and signal problems”. When the complainant approached the opposite party, they stated that some parts are to be replaced, for which the complainant has to pay its cost, for which complainant refused, as it was within the warranty period. Therefore, the opposite party sent the handset to the service centre which is situated over the showroom of opposite party. The employees of the service centre also stated that some parts of the mobile are to be replaced, for which the complainant has to pay the cost of those parts, for which the complainant did not agree stating that the handset is covered by warranty period. The employees of the service centre refused to repair the handset though it is covered by warranty period. The complainant got issued notice on 16.02.2017, for which they did not reply. Hence the complaint.

            3.  The opposite party remained exparte in this case, even without making their appearance either in person or through advocate.

            4.  Complainant filed her evidence affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Complainant also filed written arguments on her behalf.

            5.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

            (ii).  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

            (iii). To what relief?

            6. Point No.(i):-  The complainant specifically alleging that she purchased Celkon Mobile Phone bearing IMEI No.911166900392805 from the opposite party for Rs.5,300/- on 02.04.2016 with a warranty of one year. The opposite party also issued invoice bearing No.SI/TPT2/59 dt:02.04.2016 for Rs.5,300/-. When the handset developed some problems such as “over-heating, long time charging and tower signal tracing” etc., the complainant approached the opposite party and apprised the problems. The opposite party replaced the handset with a new mobile handset of the same company bearing IMEI No.911466900408981 of lower cost i.e. Rs.4,100/-. It is also covered by warranty period of one year and the opposite party issued separate invoice bearing No.SI/TPT2/242 dt:06.04.2016 stating to the complainant that the new mobile handset will work excellently. Though the second handset is lower in cost than the earlier one, the complainant accepted the same, as the opposite party assured that the mobile will work excellently, but subsequently, it was also development problems such as over-heating, charging and signal tracing. When the complainant approached the opposite party, they stated that some parts are to be replaced and the complainant has to bear the cost of the spare parts, and refused to get the mobile handset repaired though it was within the warranty period. Therefore, the complainant got issued notice under Ex.A3. Then the opposite party sent the mobile handset to service centre, which is situated above the showroom of the opposite party. The complainant also approached the service centre. The employees of the service centre also stated to the complainant that some parts are to be replaced and the cost of such spare parts are to be paid by the complainant. Though the handset is within the warranty period, they bluntly refused to get the handset repaired. The invoices under Exs.A1 and A2 establish that the complainant has purchased the mobile handset. Under Ex.A2, she got the second new handset worth Rs.4,100/-, so in that regard also the opposite party gained a sum of Rs.1,200/-, just by replacing the mobile. Now, it is also evident on record by virtue of affidavit of the complainant that the opposite party and their service centre refused to get the handset repaired free of cost though the mobile is within the warranty period. Under the above circumstances, it is prima facie proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and they are negligent enough to repair the mobile or replace it or to pay its cost. Accordingly this point is answered.

            7. Point No.(ii):- As was discussed supra under point No.1, the complainant has established that there is deficiency in service and also negligence on the part of the opposite party in getting the handset repaired free of cost or replace with new one as it is within the warranty period or even to pay back its cost to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for, which appears to be quite reasonable. Accordingly this point is answered.

            8.  Point No.(iii):- In view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant has established that there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is entitled to the refund of the cost of the mobile phone as sought for and complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

            In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs.5,300/- (Rupees five thousand three hundred only) as shown under Ex.A1 to the complainant with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 02.04.2016 till realization. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and also towards negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of the complaint as prayed for. The opposite party is further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization.       

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 2^nd day of August, 2017.

 

        Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/-                               

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Smt. T. Lalithamma (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
	Big C Mobiles (P) Limited Cash bill issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant in Original. Inv. Dt: 02.04.2016.
	Big C Mobiles (P) Limited Cash bill issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant in Original. Inv. Dt: 06.04.2016.
	Office copy of Legal Notice issued by Complainant to Opposite Party. Dt: 16.02.2017.
	Served Postal Acknowledgement Card in Original. Dt: 17.02.2017.

 

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 party.