Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

128/2014

K.Chandrasekaran, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Poorvika Mobiles Pvt Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.S.Angamuthu-com

18 Oct 2016

ORDER

 

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  03.07.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  18.10.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

TUESDAY THE 18^th    DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.128/2014

 

Mr.K.Chandrasekaran,

Plot No.5/88, 8^th Street,

S.R.B.Nagar, Kolathur,

Chennai – 600 099.

                                                                                               ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

	1.The Manager, Poorvika Mobiles Private Limited, No.168, M.T.H.Road, Villivakkam, Chennai – 49.   2.The Manager, United Telelinks (Bangalore) Ltd., No.39/13, Appareddypalya Main Road, Off. 7th Main, HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore, State of Karnataka, PIN – 560 038.
	.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  09.07.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.S.Angamuthu

Counsel for opposite parties                    : Ex - parte

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY MEMBER  TMT.T.KALAIYARASI,  B.A.B.L.,       

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IS IN BRIEF:

          The 2^nd Opposite Party is an Importer cum Marketer of Karbon Brand Mobile Phones and the 1^st Opposite Party is a Mobile sales outlet, selling various brands including karbon brand. On 09.09.2013, the Complainant purchased a karbon mobile of basic model for a sum of Rs.1,500/-. At the time of purchase the Complainant found the low volume in  speaker during call. The salesman informed the Complainant that speaker volume is normal one and believing his words the Complainant purchased the product. The volume was reducing each call and day by day and finally volume inaudible and muted within 10 days of the purchase. On 03.10.2013, the Complainant approached the 1^st Opposite Party  handed over the entire set to him, since the 1^st Opposite Party assured that he will solve the problem by sending the hand set to the 2^nd Opposite Party and sought time for 3 days for service. On 08.10.2013 when the Complainant approached the 1^st Opposite Party and received the handset and found that the battery and rear case of mobile was replaced with old one. Hence the Complainant sent an e-mail to the 1^st Opposite Party to rectify such defects. However the 1^st Opposite Party did not rectify the defect. Hence the Complainant issued notice to the 1^st Opposite Party and thereafter filed this Complaint seeking various reliefs for replacement of mobile and compensation for Deficiency in Service, unfair trade practice and mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This Opposite Party admits that the Complainant purchased a Karbon Mobile for a sum of Rs.1,500/-. This Opposite Party delivered the good quality of the product. It is not correct that the Complainant had found low volume in speaker during the call. The Complainant sent notice and the same was suitably replied by him. The other allegations made in the Complaint are denied. This Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

          3. The 2^nd Opposite Party remained ex- parte.

          4. Though the 1^st Opposite Party filed his written version he also remained ex-parte by not filing his proof affidavit.  

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

6. POINT NO :1

          Admittedly the 2^nd Opposite Party is the Importer cum Marketer of Karbon Brand Mobile and the 1^st Opposite Party is a mobile sales outlet including the Karbon Mobile. The Complainant purchased a Karbon Mobile on 09.09.2013 at the 1^st Opposite Party outlet on payment of consideration of Rs.1,500/- under Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is the warranty card issued for the said product.

          7. According to the Complainant the deficiency is that while he was using the product call by call and day by day the volume of voice is low from the date of purchase and  the volume become inaudible and muted within 10 days from the purchase and on his Complaint the 1^st Opposite Party received the product for rectification and on 08.10.2013 when the Complainant went to the 1^st Opposite Party and collected the product and found that the battery and rear case of the product was changed with old one and even after issuing Ex.A4 notice the 1^st Opposite Party has not rectified the same and therefore the 1^st Opposite Party as a dealer-cum-seller and the 2^nd Opposite Party importer cum marketer are liable for the deficiency stated above.

          8. The Complainant specifically stated the above deficiency in his Ex.A4 notice. The 1^st Opposite Party gave Ex.A6 reply and in which he had stated that United Telelinks (Banglore) Ltd (2^nd Opposite Party) approved for replacement and they requested the Complainant to visit the branch and collect earlier. However the Complainant contended that even after such reply the Opposite Parties have not replaced the product. Once the 1^st Opposite Party admits for replacement of the product through the 2^nd Opposite Party, it is clearly established that the product sold to the Complainant is a defective one and by selling such a defective product the Opposite Parties have committed Deficiency in Service.

 9. POINT NO: 2

          The Complainant wanted replacement of the product. Though the Opposite Parties have agreed to replace the product, they have not done the same and in such circumstances it would be appropriate to order to pay the cost of the product of Rs.1,500/- would meet ends of justice. Since the product has become defective within 10 days and the same was not rectified by the Opposite Parties proves their negligence and thereby caused mental agony to the Complainant is accepted and for such mental agony it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/-as litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1&2 jointly or severally are ordered to refund a sum of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees  thousand and five hundred only) towards the cost of the product to the Complainant and also to pay  a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five  thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 18^th   day of October 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 09.09.2013                   Invoice cum Delivery Challan

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     Warranty Card

Ex.A3 dated 08.10.2013                   Mail to first Opposite Party by Complainant

Ex.A4 dated 30.10.2013                   Legal notice with postal Receipts

Ex.A5 dated 09.11.2013                   Acknowledgement card of 1^st Opposite Party

Ex.A6 dated 06.02.2014                   Reply notice by 1^st Opposite Party

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT