BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 88/2012.
THIS THE 31st DAY OF OCTOBER 2013.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Prakash Kumar B.A. LLB. PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Sachin Adithya S/o. N. Sreenivas, age 21 years, Occ: Student, R/o. Plot No. 302 Akhil Sarovara Apartments, Azad Nagar, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. The Manager,
Salore International Limited, Manufacturer of
HTC Mobiles, C/o. D-13/4, Okhala Industrial Estate, Phase-II, New Delhi.
2. The Manager,
Bright Point India Pvt. Ltd., B-92, 9th floor, Himalaya House, 23 K.G. Marg, New Delhi- 110020.
3. The Proprietor,
Sri.Vinayak Electronics, Flexlink, Authorized Service Center for HTC Mobiles, C/o. Chiragali Lane, Near Medwin Hospital, Abids, Hyderabad.
4. The Manager,
Sangeetha Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Authorized Dealer and seller of HTC Mobiles, C/o. Ashwini Complex, Station Road, Raichur.
5. The Branch Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Khatkam Complex, Near Chandramouleshwara Circle, Raichur.
Date of institution :- 06-11-2012.
Date of disposal :- 31-10-2013
Complainant represented by Sri. Veeresh Sajjan, Advocate
Opposite No.1 represented by Sri. Khaja Hussain, Advocate.
Opposite No.2 is Ex-parte.
Opposite No.3 is Ex-parte.
Opposite No.4 represented by Sri.S.N. Madhu, Advocate.
Opposite No.5 represented by Sri. Vikram Nair, Advocate.
ORDER
By Sri. Prakash Kumar, President:-
The complaint is filed by the complainant against the Respondents U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complaint in brief is that, the complainant purchased HTC Mobile from Respondent No-4 on 15-07-2012 by paying Rs.18,639/- and it was insured with Respondent No-5. Respondent No-1 is the authorized service center of HTC Mobiles. Respondent No-2 is the importer of HTC Mobile. Respondent No-3 is the authorized service center of HTC Mobile Center. Respondent No-4 is the dealer and seller of HTC Mobile and Respondent No-5 has insurer of HTC mobile phone. The mobile purchased by complainant worked properly only for five days and thereafter it was getting switched off automatically due to continuous vibration. In this regard Respondent No-4 asked the complainant to approach Respondent No-3 as there is no authorized center in Raichur. Hence the complainant approached Respondent No-3 on 30-07-2012 with his complaint. Instead of providing service he used the filthy language against the complainant. On 13-08-2012 again the complainant approached Respondent No-3 with his complaint and the Respondent No-3 insisted to pay Rs.9,878/- towards repair charges of the mobile. The complainant informed Respondent No-3 that his mobile was still under warranty period and insured with Respondent No-5. But he refused to hear the complainant and Respondent No-3 joining the Respondent No-4 refused even to give claim form and thereby practiced unfair trade practice to make personal gain which amounts to deficiency in service. Due to this complainant suffered mental agony as he had to incur traveling expenses to go to Hyderabad. Hence the complaint seeking compensation as prayed for.
3. The Respondent No-1 filed written version stating that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint as the Respondent No-1 is based in New Delhi. Respondent No-1 is not the manufacturer of HTC Mobile Phones and hence not liable under law to replace the mobile phone of the complainant or refund the purchase money or pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. or to pay cost. Respondent No-1 was only an authorized service center for repair of HTC mobile under warranty which it did till 31-07-2012 when its service contract was terminated by HTC. Respondent No-1 has no connection with Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in any manner whatsoever. The Respondent No-1 has not indulged in any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and thus he is not liable to pay anything to the complainant. The complainant has not correlated the loss suffered by him with the loss claimed by him in the complaint to claim any damages from Respondent No-1. The name of the Respondent No-1 is not salore but salora. Hence the complaint be dismissed as against Respondent No-1.
4. The Respondent No-4 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant purchased mobile hand set from Respondent No-4 who is doing the role as a facilitator and permitted only to sell the mobile sets without opening the seal of the sealed container box and hence the manufacturer M/s. The Salore International Ltd., is only responsible for all al defects arisen out of the mobile set. This is clearly mentioned in the manual book as well as in the invoice given by Respondent No-4 at the time of sale of the mobile set to the complainant. The Respondent No-4 has taken due care of the complainant at the time of the purchase or after sale services of the mobile set and sent the complainant to the authorized service center of the manufacturer who is arrayed as Respondent No-3 in the complaint whose responsibility to provide service to the customers as an authorized service center of the manufacturer and if the authorized service center has failed to provide services to the complainant’s satisfaction this Respondent No-4 is not responsible for the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No-4 at any point of time. In the invoice under which the complainant purchased the mobile set it has been stated that only the manufacture is responsible and Respondent No-4 is not responsible. The Respondent No-4 is not having any knowledge about the transactions taken place between the complainant and other Respondents. There is no cause of action to file the complaint against the Respondent No-4. To the legal notice issued by the complainant to Respondent No-4 proper reply given stating the above facts. The averments made in the complaint which are not specifically traversed are all denied as false. Therefore the complaint be dismissed against the Respondent No-4 with exemplary cost in the interest of justice.
5. The Respondent No-5 filed written version stating that the complaint is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed as it is based on false and frivolous allegations. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and Respondent No-5. Consequently the complainant is not entitled for any monetary benefits from Respondent No-5. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties as the Respondent No-5 is not at all a necessary party. The policy issued does not cover the risk for repair or damage to the mobile phone. The complaint is devoid of any material substance. No deficiency of service or unfair trade practice can be attributed against the Respondent No-5. This forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The compensation claimed in the complaint is highly exaggerated and is on the higher side. Other allegations which are not specifically traversed are denied as false. Hence the complaint be dismissed against the Respondent No-5 with cost in the interest of justice.
6. Complainant to prove his case filed his affidavit which is marked as PW-1 and relied on nine documents which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9. The Respondent No-4 filed his affidavit which is marked as RW-1 and produced one document as Ex.R-1. Respondent No-5 filed his affidavit evidence which is marked as RW-2 and produced one document as Ex.R-2. Respondent No-1 filed his affidavit which is marked as RW-3 and produced three documents as Ex.R-3 to Ex.R-5.
7. Arguments heard on both sides.
8. The points that arise for our consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents against him.?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for.?
3. What order?
9. Our answer on the above points are as under:
(1) In Negative
(2) In Negative.
(3) As per final order:
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
10. The complainant contending that he purchased HTC mobile from Respondent No-4 on 15-07-2012 and it was insured with Respondent No-5, however within five days of its purchase it was getting switched off automatically filed the complaint before this forum and sought for refund of the amount paid by him for the mobile set or to replace it with new one along with compensation Rs.30,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. However the complainant himself in his complaint stated that Respondent No-1 is the authorized service center and Respondent No-2 is the importer of HTC mobile. The Respondent No-1 in his written version stated that his concern is not manufacturing HTC mobile phones and is only an authorized service center of HTC mobile till 31-07-2012 and thereafter the said contract was terminated by HTC . This aspect is also reiterated by Respondent No-1 in the reply given to the legal notice issued by the complainant wherein it is clearly stated that the Respondent No-1 is neither the manufacturer nor seller of HTC mobile. Therefore the Respondent No-1 neither being the manufacturer nor the seller of mobile phone sold to the complainant and the complainant having not approached the Respondent No-1 for any service the Respondent No-1 cannot be held responsible for any defect in the mobile phone purchased by the complainant and he cannot be asked to either refund the amount paid to the mobile phone nor to replace it along with compensation to the complainant. Likewise the Respondent No-2 being only the importer of HTC mobile phone, as admitted by the complainant himself, is also in any way responsible to either refund the amount paid by the complainant to the mobile phone purchased by him or to replace it or to pay any compensation to the complainant. There is no connection whatsoever between the complainant and Respondent No-2. In the same manner the Respondent No-3 as stated by the complainant himself being the authorized service center of HTC mobile and the complainant having not established any contact with Respondent No-3 with regard to the mobile phone purchased by him, also cannot be held liable in any manner to pay the compensation as sought for by the complainant.
11. Ex.P-2 produced by the complainant does not reveal that it pertains to the mobile phone purchased by the complainant bearing IME NO. 351816058194790. Hence the same cannot be accepted as evidence showing that the complainant had approached Respondent No-3 with regard to problem with the mobile phone purchased by him.
12. As regards the Respondent No-4 is concerned, he having sold the mobile phone to the complainant is liable to give relief to the complainant either by refunding the amount paid by him to the mobile set or by replacing it only in case the complainant proves any defect in the mobile set purchased by him. But the complainant has not produced any evidence which shows that the mobile phone purchased by him is having some inherent defects which warrants either refund of money paid for the same or replacement of the same with new one. Likewise the Respondent No-5 being the insurer of the mobile phones sold by the Respondent No-4 is liable to comply with the conditions of the insurance policy only if it is proved by the complainant that the mobile set purchased by him is having inherent defects. It is not being proved the Respondent No-5 also cannot be asked to either reimburse the amount paid by the complainant for the mobile phone or to pay any compensation. That being the case the Respondents cannot be held liable for deficiency in service as against the complainant. Accordingly this point is answered in the Negative.
POINT NO.2:-
13. As complainant has failed to prove his case and failed to prove deficiency in service against the Respondents he is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint. Accordingly this point is answered in Negative.
POINT NO.3:-
14. As per order below:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
There is no order as to cost.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open court on 31-10-2013)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Prakash Kumar,
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
