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
M.V.R. SHARMA, B.A. MEMBER
Thursday, 30th April 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 02/ 2015
A. Naganna, S/o Gangaiah, aged 35 years,
H.No. 1/797-9, Dawaraka Nagar,
Kadapa city – 516 001, Y.S.R. District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. Celkon Impox Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its
Managing Director, 3rd floor, Block – 02
My home Hub Madhapur, Hi-tech City,
Hyderabad – 500 081 (India).
2. The Proprietor Nakshatra Mobiles,
Authorized dealer of Celikon, H.No. 723-16,
Janatha complex, Beside Bata Show Room,
Near Old Busstand, Kotireddy Street,
Kadapa city – 516 001. ….. Respondents.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 27-4-2015 in the presence of complainant in person and R1 called absent and set exparte on 12-2-2015 and Sri S. Srinivasulu, Advocate for R2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per 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 respondents to replace the mobile or to refund Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of the mobile together with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 6-11-2014 till realization, to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the complainant purchased mobile phone bearing No. 911386903190909 model – celkon A35K under bill No. 2858, dt. 6-11-2014 for Rs. 3,000/- from respondent No. 2, who is authorized retailer of respondent No.1 manufacturer of the mobile phone. As per terms and conditions of the bill the mobile bears one year warranty from the date of purchase i.e. from 6-11-2014. But ever since the date of purchase the said cell phone developed with problems viz., battery was not charged properly, videos / images futures are not functioning properly and also software problem. He was unable to operate the mobile phone. He contacted the respondent No. 2 and ventilated his grievance and requested to replace the cell phone with another one. The Manager in the shop replied that the owner is not available and come afterwards. Two days later he contacted respondent No. 2 and requested to replace the cell or refund the cost of cell. But he replied not possible to replace or refund the cost. He tried again and again but in vain. He is physically challenged person. Due to the defectiveness of the mobile manufactured and marketed by the respondents he was forced to go around the shop and put to mental agony besides loss of money. The respondents are negligent in attending the grievance of complainant. There is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. The complainant issued legal notice on 18-12-2014 calling upon the respondents to replace the mobile phone or refund of cost of the phone, to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony. But the respondents received the same no reply was given. Since the mobile phone sold by the respondents is defective one and having manufacturing defects and not functioning there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
3. Respondent No. 1 remained exparte.
4. Respondent No. 2 filed counter admitting that he is authorized dealer of respondent No. 1 manufacturing company of mobile phone sold to the complainant on 6-11-2014 for Rs. 3,000/- and the complainant approached him complaining that the mobile is not properly functioning after its purchase by him. It is further averred that after purchase of the cell phone the complainant came to the shop requesting with regard to the procedure to be adopted for functioning of the mobile phone and due to lack of knowledge in using cell phone by the complainant he found some difficulties, then this respondent advised the complainant to approach authorized service center, which is provided by respondent No. 1 in Kadapa. But the complainant who is negligent failed to approach the authorized service center. Hence, he is not concerned to the defects found in the cell phone. Moreover as per terms and conditions bill dt. 6-11-2014 he has to get redressal through authorized service center only. The complainant has not deposited cell phone to find out the inherent defects as alleged by the complainant. No expert report is filed. Hence, it cannot be said that the cell phone is suffering with defects. The petition is devoid of bonafidies. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether mobile phone purchased by the complainant is defective one and not properly functioning?
- Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents?
- To what relief?
6. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A3 documents are marked. No documents are marked for respondents.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record and considered written arguments filed by the complainant.
8. Point Nos. 1 & 2. The admitted facts are that the complainant purchased a mobile phone model Celkon – A35K manufactured by respondent No. 1 from its authorized dealer respondent No. 2 at Kadapa on 6-11-2014 for Rs. 3,000/- under bill Ex. A1 issued by respondent No.2. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant after purchase approached respondent No. 2 complaining that the mobile phone purchased by him was not properly functioning battery was not properly charged and there are some defects in the phone. Therefore, he requested for replacement of the same or refund the amount of Rs. 3,000/- paid by him within warranty period from 6-11-2014. A perusal of Ex. A1 bill filed by complainant clearly goes to show that there is warranty of one year to the mobile purchased by him on 6-11-2014 from respondent No. 2. As seen from Ex. A2 legal notice dt. 18-12-2014 issued by complainant to respondents he brought all the defects of the mobile phone purchased by him from respondent No. 2 manufactured by respondent No. 1 to their notice. The respondents received the same under Ex. A3. No reply whatsoever has been issued by them denying the allegations in the notice of complainant. No evidence whatsoever has been placed by R2 to show that he is no way concerned to the defective mobile sold to complainant. The complainant is a senior citizen. He purchased the cell phone for his personal use for an amount of Rs. 3,000/- from respondent No. 2. The said mobile was manufactured by respondent No.1. if there are no defects in the phone and it worked properly, there is no necessity or grievance to the complainant to approach the respondent No.2 bringing to his notice about the defects and not functioning of the battery properly and the device. Even, though the complainant ventilated his grievances regarding functioning of mobile phone purchased by him the respondent No. 2 has not properly addressed his grievances by sending to the authorized dealer for rectification of the defects etc., on the other hand he kept quiet stating that he is no way responsible for mobile manufactured by respondent No.1. Though the respondent No. 1 is the manufacturer but still respondent No. 2 is the authorized dealer of respondent No. 1, who sold the mobile phone to complainant. So he is also liable to take responsibility for the defective product sold to the complainant even if it is manufactured by respondent No. 1 equally along with him. The complainant produced the cell phone in this forum for its physical verification and we found it defective and not functioning properly. Therefore, it is proved by the complainant that the mobile purchased by him under Ex. A1 is inherent manufacturing defects and has not properly worked after its purchase by the complainant from respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 was not properly advised or addressed the grievance of the complainant regarding working condition of mobile phone sold to him. Therefore, we hold there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents and both are equally liable to replace mobile phone purchased by him with a new one or refund of its costs besides paying some amounts for mental agony and costs. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.
9. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally to refund Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards cost of mobile phone to the complainant and shall also pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards causing mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards cost of the complaint. The respondents shall pay the above amounts within 45 days from today, failing which the amount of Rs. 3,000/- shall carry interest at 9% p.a. till realization. The complainant shall return the mobile phone purchased by him under Ex. A1 bill to R2 under acknowledgement.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 30th April 2015
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex.A1 Original cash bill dt.06-11-2014 from Nakshtra Mobiles, Kadapa.
Ex.A2 Legal notice dt,18-12-2014 issued by the complainant to the
respondents.
Ex.A3 P/c of Two postal receipts dated.18-12-2014 and 22-12-2014 along
with one Acknowledgement card.
Exhibits marked for Respondents : - NIL
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- A. Naganna, S/o Gangaiah, aged 35 years,
H.No. 1/797-9, Dawaraka Nagar,
Kadapa city – 516 001, Y.S.R. District.
- Celkon Impox Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its
Managing Director, 3rd floor, Block – 02
My home Hub Madhapur, Hi-tech City,
Hyderabad – 500 081 (India).
- Sri S. Srinivasulu, Advocate for R2.
B.V.P.
