Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/15/2016

A.S.Raghavendra S/o. Nagendrappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Asus Technology Pvt.Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.N.S.Shamsundr

19 Dec 2016

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON : 16/02/2016

     DISPOSED ON: 19/12/2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

CC. NO. 15/2016 DATED:  19th December 2016

PRESENT :-     SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH      PRESIDENT                                      B.A., LL.B.,

                        SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY             MEMBER

                                         B.A., LL.B.,                   

COMPLAINANT	A.S. Raghavendra, S/o Nagendrappa, R/o Medehalli Road, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. N.S. Shamasundar, Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Managing Director, Asus Technology Pvt. Ltd., 4C, Gundecha, Onclave, Kirani Road, Near Sakinak Police Chowki, Dhankanaka, Anderi East, Mumbai-400 072.   2. The Managing Director, Regenerisis India Pvt. Ltd., No.53, III Floor, Sri. Chakravarthy Complex, V.V. Puram, Sajjan Rao Circle, Bangalore-04.   (ex-parte)

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH. PRESIDENT.

ORDER

The complainant has filed a complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the OPs for a direction to the OPs to replace the cell phone along with damages, compensation for mental agony, costs and such other reliefs.  

2.     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that, on 16.03.2015 complainant purchased ASUS Zenfone c Z C 451CG model No.IMEI/Serial No.357067060831920 from OPs through online vide order No.ID.OD/202337214363724700 and the same has been delivered by the Postal Authorities at Chitradurga on 17.03.2015 by receiving a sum of Rs.5,999/-.  The said cell phone is having a warranty period i.e., up to 13.03.2016 at 12-00 hours.  OP No.1 s the manufactured and OP No.2 is authorized service center and if any problems occurred in the cell phone, OP No.2 is responsible to repair the same during the warranty period as authorized by OP No.1.  It is further submitted that, complainant used the same for 10-15 days, thereafter the cell phone started giving problem, it will be hanged and the phone cannot be operated.  Immediately, complainant approached OP No.2 to get it repair and handed over the same by receiving acknowledgement No.RMA No.INA 570416 and after repairs, OP No.2 delivered the cell phone to complainant.  Complainant used the same for one month but, again it started giving problem.  By that time, the camera cannot work properly, when memory card is inserted the phone will be immediately hanged.  Again complainant handed over the same to OP No.2 by receiving acknowledgment No.RMA No.INA 590072 and OP No.2 repaired and delivered to the complainant.  After one month, again the cell phone started giving same problem along with stoppage of blue tooth work and the same is brought to the notice of OP No.2, who received the same and assured the complainant to rectify the mistakes.  Complainant personally visited the office of OP No.2, who received the cell phone by giving acknowledgement bearing No.INAW5B0526 on 27.11.2015 and assured to rectify the problems within two days but, he did not do so and also not intimated about the progress of the repair till today.  It is further submitted that, from the date of purchase, the said handset is giving one or the other problem and the same was informed to the OP No.2.  The authorized officer of OP No.2 assured the complainant to provide new handset by replacing the same but, he failed to keep up the promise.  The complainant has left the cell phone with the OP No.2.   Complainant approached OPs several times to get repair the said handset or to replace the same but, the OPs failed to cure the problems found in the mobile handset or to replace the same as the same is within the warranty period, which is a deficiency of service and prayed for allow the complaint.

 

3. Inspite of service of notice, OPs nor appeared in person or through their Advocates.  Hence, placed ex-parte. 

4. Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and documents are marked at Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5.

5.     Arguments heard.

 

6. Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:

 

Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proves that, OPs have committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and he is entitled for compensation as stated in his complaint?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

 

        7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:

        Point No.1:- Partly affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per the final order.

                                        ::REASONS::

 

8. Point No. 1:- It is not in dispute that, on 16.03.2015 complainant purchased ASUS Zenfone c Z C 451CG model No.IMEI/Serial No.357067060831920 from OPs through online vide order No.ID.OD/202337214363724700 and the same has been delivered by the Postal Authorities at Chitradurga on 17.03.2015 by receiving a sum of Rs.5,999/- with warranty period i.e., up to 13.03.2016 at 12-00 hours manufactured by OP No.1.  The contention of the complainant is that, if any problems occurred in the cell phone within the warranty period, the authorized service center i.e., OP No.2 is responsible to repair the same.  After using the cell phone for 15 days, it starts giving problem i.e., it will be hanged and the phone cannot be operated.  Complainant approached OP No.2 nearly three times to get it repair and handed over the same by receiving acknowledgements and after repairs, OP No.2 delivered the cell phone to complainant.  Complainant used the same for few days but, again it started giving problem.  After repair, the camera cannot work properly, when memory card is inserted the phone will be immediately hanged.  Again complainant handed over the same to OP No.2 by receiving acknowledgment and OP No.2 repaired and delivered to the complainant.  Again the cell phone started giving same problem along with stoppage of blue tooth work and the same is brought to the notice of OP No.2, who received the same and assured the complainant to rectify the mistakes.  Complainant personally visited the office of OP No.2, who received the cell phone by giving acknowledgement bearing No.INAW5B0526 on 27.11.2015 and assured to rectify the problems within two days but, he did not do so and also not intimated about the progress of the repair till today.  It is argued by the complainant that, from the date of purchase, the said handset is giving one or the other problem and the same was informed to the OP No.2.  The authorized officer of OP No.2 assured the complainant to provide new handset by replacing the same but, he failed to keep up the promise and the handset is with the OP No.2.   Complainant approached OPs several times to get repair the said handset or to replace the same but, the OPs failed to cure the problems found in the mobile handset or to replace the same as the same is within the warranty period, which is a deficiency of service.  

 

 9.    In support of his contention, complainant has relied on his affidavit evidence in which he has reiterated the contents of complaint.  Complainant has also relied on documents like Service Form dated 27.11.2015 marked as Ex.A-1, Legal Notice dated 27.12.2015 marked as Ex.A-2, Unserved Postal Cover marked as Ex.A-3, Postal Acknowledgement marked as Ex.A-4 and Postal Receipt marked as Ex.A-5.

10.   After service of notice, OPs failed to appear before the Forum to disprove the contention of the complainant alleged in the complaint.  

  

11.   We have carefully gone through the complaint, version affidavit evidence and the documents. It is seen that, complainant purchased ASUS Zenfone c Z C 451CG model No.IMEI/Serial No.357067060831920 from OPs through online vide order No.ID.OD/202337214363724700 on 16.03.2015.  The said cell phone has been delivered by the Postal Authorities at Chitradurga on 17.03.2015 by receiving a sum of Rs.5,999/- with warranty period up to 13.03.2016.  OP No.1 is the manufacturer and OP No.2 is the service provider.  The contention of the complainant is that, within the warranty period i.e., after using the cell phone for 15 days, it starts giving problem like hanging and the same cannot be operated.  Complainant approached OP No.2 nearly three times to get it repair and handed over the same by receiving acknowledgements and after repairs, OP No.2 delivered the cell phone to complainant.  Complainant used the same for few days but, again it started giving problem.  After repair, the camera cannot work properly, when memory card is inserted the phone will be immediately hanged.  Again complainant handed over the same to OP No.2 by receiving acknowledgment and OP No.2 repaired and delivered to the complainant.  Again the cell phone started giving same problem along with stoppage of blue tooth work and the same is brought to the notice of OP No.2, who received the same and assured the complainant to rectify the mistakes.  Thereafter, complainant personally visited the office of OP No.2, who received the cell phone by giving acknowledgement bearing No.INAW5B0526 on 27.11.2015 and assured the authorized officer of OP No.2 assured the complainant to provide new handset by replacing the same but, he failed to keep up the promise and the handset is with the OP No.2.   Complainant approached OPs several times to get repair the said handset or to replace the same but, the OPs failed to cure the problems found in the mobile handset or to replace the same as the same is within the warranty period, which is a deficiency of service.  The mobile hand set purchased by the complainant was having manufacturing defects within the warranty period i.e., within 10-15 days from the date of purchase, the said problem is to be cured by the OPs but, they failed to cure/set right the problem in the handset or to replace the same with new one, which is a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, for which the complainant is liable to be compensated.  When the product purchased by the customer is giving problem and the same is having manufacturing defects, the same is to be cured by the service provider/manufacturer.  OPs did not appear before the Forum to disbelieve the contention taken by the complainant in the complaint. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, the OPs have committed a deficiency of service on their part.  Accordingly, we answer the Point No.1 held as partly affirmative.                

12.  Point No.2:- For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following.

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to replace the new mobile Handset of the same model with defect free to the complainant. 

It is further ordered that, if fails to replace the same, OPs are directed to return a sum of Rs.5,999/-, the cost of mobile and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony to the complainant in all a sum of Rs.15,999/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. 

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceeding.  

 

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

        (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 19/12/2016 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)

 

 

 

MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Complainant by filing affidavit evidence taken as PW-1

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Service Form dated 27.11.2015
02	Ex-A-2:-	Legal Notice dated 27.12.2015
03	Ex.A-3:-	Unserved Postal Cover
04	Ex.A-4:-	Postal Acknowledgement
05	Ex.A-5:-	Postal Receipt

 

Documents marked on behalf of Opponents:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

Rhr.