CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 26^th  day of September 2014

PRESENT  : SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT             Date of filing: 9/1/2014       

                  : SMT. SHINY.P.R, MEMBER

        : SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER

CC/10/2014                  

Rahulkrishna,

S/o.Parthasarathy.K.R,                                              :        Complainant

Paramount garden,

Syamanivas, Ayyapankavu,

Palakkad (Rep.By) Father and

Natural guardian Parthasarathy.K.R,

S/o.Late Radhakrishnan

             do         

(By Adv.Rajesh.M)  

                                                                    Vs

1. M/S.Univercell Telecommunications India

Private Limited

(Rep.By) The Managing Director,

UniverCell Telecommunications India

Private Limited

Corporate Office No.281, T.T.K.Road,

Alwarpet, Chennai- 600018.

1. The Manager,

Univercell Telecommunications India

Private Limited, T.B.Road,

Palakkad.

1. CELKON Impex Pvt.Lmitied,

(Rep.by) The Managing Director,

     3^rd Floor, 2^nd block,                                             :        Opposite parties

MY HOME HUB, Madhapur,

Hydrabad, Andhrapradesh,

India-500081

O R D E R

By Smt. Seena.H, President

The complainant has purchased from the 2^nd opposite party a mobile phone under the name and style of “CELKON SIGNATURE” with NUMBER 911328800000161 on 07/09/2013 for an amount of Rs.7,000/- (Seven Thousand Rupees).  From the very beginning the mobile phone was faulty and on various occasion it was brake down due to manufacturing defect.  The 1^st opposite party is the person dealing it as an authorized center for dealing with the above brand name and the 2^nd opposite party is the person responsible for the distribution of the same.

The complainant purchased the above mobile phone with an exchange offer and his using LG phone which was in a good working condition and shape is exchanged to the CELKON brand mobile.

The complainant found that the mobile phone is of bad quality and always making problems.  Because of the complaint  of the phone he is forced to approach the 2^nd opposite party on various occasions and many times the phone is handed over to him and no service is provided by the 2^nd opposite party or the 3^rd opposite party.

The 2^nd opposite party told complainant that the phone need major repairs and the same is taken from complainant and it is told to complainant that it will take minimum 20 more days for the service of the same.  The complainant is forced to buy Samsung duos in the place of the phone opposite parties have supplied for a sum of Rs.8,000/-.  The complainant has been put too much mental agony by opposite parties attitude towards complainant and the service which opposite parties have promised to give to complainant is not been given by opposite parties.  The act of opposite parties part towards complainant is one of deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.  Complainant prays a total amount of Rs.66,500/- as compensation from opposite parties.

All opposite parties set exparte.

The evidence adduced by complainant consists of the chief affidavit and Ext.A1 to A3 documents.

Now the Issues for consideration are

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

Issues 1 & 2

Complainant purchased mobile phone from 2^nd  opposite party is born out by Ext.A1.  complainant alleged certain defects in the phone which was intimated to the opposite parties. It is the case of the complainant that none of the opposite parties cared to rectify the same.  Complainant has stated in the complaint that it was taken for repair by the 2^nd opposite party, but has not stated whether it was returned or not. Anyhow, expert commission was not take to prove the  defect if any.  Mobile set was not produced before the forum also.  Complainant has stated that he was forced to buy another mobile of Samsung make for which  also no evidence is forthcoming.  Considering the fact all the opposite parties remained exparte and there is no evidence contrary to the one adduced by the complainant, we partly allow the complaint and order the following.

Opposite parties jointly and severally directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation for the deficiency in service along with Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only)  as cost.

Ordered amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 26^th  day of September 2014.

Sd/-

                                                                               Smt. Seena. H

                         President

                             Sd/-

                      Smt. Shiny. P.R

                          Member

                            Sd/-

                     Smt. Suma. K.P

                           Member

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1          -  Tax Invoice of 2^nd opposite party issued to complainant Rs.7,000/- dt.7/9/2013

              (Original)

Ext.A2          - Legal notice dt.28/10/2013(True Copy)

Ext.A2(a)- Postal receipts (3 nos).

Ext.A3 -  Acknowledgment Cards (2 nos) dt.11/11/2013

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost allowed

Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only)