Date of filing: 16-12-2017 Date of order : 22-2-2018
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
Thursday, 22nd day of February, 2018
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 101 / 2017
Thunga Ayyavaru, Aged about 35 years,
S/o T. Chandrayudu,
R/a Muthulurupadu,
Bhumayapalli, Kadapa District. … Complainant.
Vs.
- The Managing Director,
LENOVA India Pvt. Ltd.,
Level 2, Ferns Icon, Outer Ring Road,
Kr. Puram Hobli, Doddanekundi Village,
Marathahalli, Opposite to Hotel seven,
Bangalore-560 037.
- Tara Mobiles, Rep. by its Proprietor,
4/488, Opposite to Nakshatra Mobiles,
Near Palem Petrol Bunk,
Nagarajupeta, Kadapa City. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 20-2-2018 in the presence of Sri C.H. Jagadeeswar, Advocate for Complainant and Opposite party no.1 and no.2 are called absent and remained ex-parte on 23-1-2018, and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following :-
O R D E R
(Per Sri V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to refund Rs.15,500/- being the cost of the mobile handset with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of its purchase i.e., 28-2-2017 till realisation, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing deficiency of service, to pay Rs.30,000/- for causing mental agony to the complainant, and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2) The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows :-
Opposite Party no.1 is the importer and marketer of LENOVA India Pvt., Ltd., whereas O.P.no.2 is dealer of O.P.no.1 in Kadapa District. On 28-2-2017 the complainant purchased LENOVA K6 NOTE Mobile phone from O.P.no.2 for Rs.15,500/- under bill bearing No.3212 issued by O.P.no.2, the said mobile phone has one year warranty as per the warranty card issued by the manufacturer. After purchase the said LENOVA mobile phone has been giving trouble and not worked from 22-4-2017. The complainant brought the same to the notice of O.P.no.2 and O.P.no.2 had taken 20 days time to rectify the mobile. Again after 2 months the mobile phone gave trouble, then the complainant informed the same to O.P.no.2 who advised the complainant to consult the service centre of Lenova India Pvt. Ltd., located in Tirupathi. The complainant approached the service centre at Tirupathi, but there was no proper response from the service centre employees. Despite several reminders by the complainant neither O.P.no.2 nor his service centre personnel attended the grievance of complainant. At last O.P.no.2 informed the complainant the cell phone has inherent manufacturing defect. The complainant issued legal notice on 21-8-2017 to the opposite parties to replace the mobile phone with a new one and to pay Rs.30,000/- for deficiency of service, mental agony, but opposite parties kept quite. The complainant suffered mental agony and trauma to the deficiency of service rendered by the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
3) Notices were issued to opposite parties 1 and 2. O.P.no.1 and 2 were served notices, but they did not turn up to refute the allegations of the complainant, but remained exparte.
4) The complainant filed his affidavit in support of his case mentioned in the complaint and got marked Exhibits A1 to A4 and close his side evidence. He reported no written arguments to be filed. Heard arguments of the complainant and perused the material placed on record.
5) The points that arise for determination are :-
- Whether is there any deficiency on the part of opposite parties as pleaded by the complainant ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed against opposite parties? if so to what extent ?
- To that relief ?
6) Points 1 and 2 :- The complainant in his proof affidavit reiterated the averments of the complaint as to how he purchased the LENOVA mobile phone from the O.P.No.2 imported by O.P.No.1 for market and how the said mobile gave trouble in functioning after its purchase and how he approached the O.P.no.2 for rectifying the defect and also the service centre of O.P.no.1 and not getting proper remedy from them. His affidavit further reveals that he purchased the LENOVA K6 NOTE Mobile phone from O.P.no.2 on 28-2-2017 for Rs.15,500/- under Ex. A1 cash bill issued by O.P.no.2 and the same had not worked from 22-4-2017 and he approached O.P.no.2 and intimated the same to him about the trouble of mobile phone and requested him to rectify the mobile and in the first instance O.P.no.2 after keeping the phone 20 days returned saying rectified the defect, but the trouble persisted in the mobile phone and again complainant brought to the notice of O.P.no.2 who in turn advised the complainant to approach the service centre at Tirupathi and accordingly complainant approached the service centre of O.P.no.1 at Tirupathi but there was no proper response from them in rectifying the defect of the mobile phone purchased by him under Ex.A1 bill. A perusal of affidavit of complainant further reveals at last O.P.no.2 declared that there is inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile phone. Then the complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the defective phone with a new one but they failed to replace the phone or to refund the amount. Therefore the complainant filed this complaint.
7) A perusal of Ex.A1 bill issued by O.P.no.2 Dt. 28-2-2017 clearly goes to show that the complainant purchased LENOVA K6 NOTE mobile phone with IMEI No.861886033667916 for Rs.15,500/- from o.p.no.2 and the said mobile has one year warranty. Ex.A2 office copy of legal notice, Dt.21-8-2017 proves that he demanded opposite parties to rectify the defect and they failed to rectify the defect in the mobile phone. So, he asked to replacement of the mobile phone with new one. But the opposite parties neither issued reply notice nor complied the demand. Ex. A3 two postal receipts for sending Ex.A2 notice to opposite parties by complainant and Ex.A4 is the served acknowledgement card of O.P.no.2.
8) As already noted the respondents who served with notices of the filing of the complaint though served with notices not attended this Forum, but remained exparte. The allegations in the complaint has been proved by the complainant by filing his affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 that he purchased a LENOVA K6 NOTE Mobile phone from opposite party no.2 imported and marketed by O.P.No.1 on 28-2-2017 and after its purchase the said mobile phone had not worked and in spite of his complaint to opposite parties about the supply of defective mobile phone the opposite parties have not responded to rectify the defect and on the other hand O.P.no.2 reported that the mobile phone has inherent manufacturing defect. If such is the case there is clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite party no.1 and 2 for supplying defective mobile phone to complainant under Ex.A1 bill for Rs.15,500/- on 28-2-2017 and not replacing the same with new one as demanded by complainant and thus caused mental agony to him.
9) Therefore, we hold the complainant proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 and caused mental agony to him. Therefore he is entitled for refund of Rs.15,500/- apart from Rs.2,000/- for deficiency of service, Rs.2,000/- for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- for costs of complaint from opposite parties no.1 and 2. Accordingly, points 1 and 2 are answered.
10) Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties no.1 and 2 jointly and severally to refund an amount of Rs.15,500/-, the cost of mobile hand set, to pay Rs.2,000/- (two thousands only) towards deficiency of service, to pay Rs.2,000/- towards causing mental agony, and to pay Rs.2,000/- for costs of the complaint within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order to the complainant, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at 9% p.a. till realization. The complainant shall return the LENOVA K6 NOTE mobile to O.P.no.2 under proper acknowledgement in the mean time.
Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 22nd day of February, 2018.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Opposite party : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1:- P/c of the bill issued by the opposite party no.2, Dt. 28-2-2017.
Ex. A2:- Office copy of the Legal Notice, Dt. 21-8-2017.
Ex. A3:- Two Postal Receipts.
Ex. A4:- Served Acknowledgement cards in respect of the 2nd opposite party.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite party : - Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri C.H. Jagadeeswar, Advocate, Kadapa.
- The Managing Director, LENOVA India Pvt. Ltd.,
Level 2, Ferns Icon, Outer Ring Road,
Kr. Puram Hobli, Doddanekundi Village,
Marathahalli, Opposite to Hotel seven,
Bangalore-560 037.
- Tara Mobiles, Rep. by its Proprietor,
4/488, Opposite to Nakshatra Mobiles,
Near Palem Petrol Bunk,
Nagarajupeta, Kadapa City.
&&&
P.R.
