Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

79/2014

Mr.Mohammed Imdadullah.M. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director,Celikon Impex pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

28 Dec 2016

ORDER

                                                              Complaint presented on  :  15.04.2014

                                                                     Order pronounced on  28.12.2016

 

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

 

WEDNESDAY THE 28^th   DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.79/2014

 

 

Mr.Mohammed Imdadullah .M

No.696/13, Anna Salai,

Melvisharam – 632 509,

Vellore Dist. Tamil Nadu.

                                                                                 ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1. The Managing Director,

Celikon Impex Pvt. Ltd.,

Q2 1^st Floor, Cyber Towers Hi-Tech City,

Hyderabad – 500 081, Andra Pradesh.

 

2.The Manager,

Celkon Mobile, Salai Enterprises,

No.B,25/26, City Centre Complex,

Purasawalakam, High Road,

Chennai – 600 007.

 

3.The Manager,

Poorvika Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

OMR, Kandanchavadi,

Chennai – 600 096.

 

...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                   : 17.04.2014

Counsel for Complainant                       : Party in person

Counsel for 1st & 2^nd opposite parties      : Ex – parte

 

Counsel for 3^rd Opposite Party                        : M/s. S.Muthuselvam

 

 

O R D E R

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

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

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant purchased a Cellkon A88 Android Mobile Phone   on 21.08.2012 on payment of Rs.6,000/-. The Complainant had a problem with the phone and he handed over the same at the 2^nd Opposite Party service centre   on 20.07.2013 for repairs. After two weeks, he has informed that the phone had “touch and display” problems and will be replaced with new Cellkon mobile under warranty claim by the following week. In this regard the service executive Mr.Babu assured on 15.11.2013 that he would give a replacement phone with model No.C7050. However even after 4 months the product was not replaced and he had no response from the service centre. The Complainant wrote a letter dated 28.11.2013 to the Opposite Party and he failed to receive a response from them. The 2^nd Opposite Party agreed to compensate a sum of Rs.12,000/- through  telephonic conversation and however  later he said that he had not received money from the Opposite Party to  pay compensation. Therefore the Opposite Parties have committed Deficiency in Service and hence he had filed this Complaint either to replace or refund the cost of the product and compensation with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE 3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          This Opposite Party denies the averments made in the Complaint except those that are specifically admitted here in. The mobile phone purchased by the Complainant has no defects. Due to mishandling of the mobile, the Complainant had broken the display board. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party for service of the mobile. The 2^nd Opposite Party also agreed to replace the new mobile with same cost with latest configuration model. However the Complainant wantonly refused for replacing the mobile. The Complainant is liable to be dismissed for the misjoinder of the Opposite Parties and therefore prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

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

4.POINT : 1

          The Complainant purchased a Cellkon A88 Android Mobile Phone   on 21.08.2012 on payment of consideration of Rs.6,000/- under Ex.A1. According to the Complainant, after two weeks there was a problem in the mobile phone and hence he handed over the mobile to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 20.07.2013 for service. The 2^nd Opposite Party issued Ex.A2 job sheet and there was touch and display in the mobile.

          5. In the service centre, one Mr.Babu service executive assured the Complainant on 15.07.2013 that he would give a replacement of mobile phone to him and for the same he gave Ex.A3 letter in writing. However, the said Babu has not replaced the mobile and the 2^nd Opposite Party further assured that he would be given a compensation of Rs.12,000/- The said amount was not paid to the Complainant by saying that the 2^nd Opposite Party had not received compensation from the 1^st Opposite Party. Therefore the Complainant contended that the mobile is defective one and having agreed to replace the product under Ex.A3, the same was not replaced and therefore the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 have committed Deficiency in Service.

          6. Admittedly Ex.A3 letter issued by one Mr.M.Babu who was the service centre executive of the 2^nd Opposite Party. The Ex.A3 reads as follows:

          “Dear Sir,

                   Model A88. This model stock not having in the Company. So the company will give for equalant model or otherwise they are giving some phone to needy condition”

                                   Regards,

                                                                                                  SIGNED

                                                                                                  M.BABU

                                                                                                 15.11.2013

 

          7. Ex.A2 is the job sheet entrusting the product to the 2^nd Opposite Party service centre to rectify the defect. In Ex.A2 itself it is clearly mentioned that ‘touch display problem’. The 2^nd Opposite Party has not filed any documents to show that he had rectified and handed over the product to the Complainant. The 1^st Opposite Party is the manufacturer and the 2^nd Opposite Party authorized service centre. Since they failed to rectify the defect in the product we hold that the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have failed to rectify the problem in the product.

          8. The 3^rd Opposite Party is only a seller and he has not committed any Deficiency in Service.

          9. The 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties remained Ex – parte. In Ex.A3, the 2^nd Opposite Party service centre seal available. Therefore on behalf of 2^nd Opposite Party service centre, its service executive gave Ex.A3 for replacement of mobile is accepted. The 3^rd Opposite Party also in his written version stated that the 2^nd Opposite Party agreed to replace the mobile. The 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Party remained Ex parte. Therefore, we hold that the 2^nd Opposite Party agreed to replace the mobile on behalf of the 1^st Opposite Party has been proved by the Complainant.   Further    the 2^nd Opposite Party failed to rectify the defects and also failed   to replace the products, it is held that the 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties have committed Deficiency in Service.

10.POINT :2       

          The Complainant purchased the product for a sum of Rs.6,000/- and the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have not rectified the problem in the mobile. Therefore the Complainant is entitled for the refund of the cost of the product of Rs.6,000/- from the 1 & 2 Opposite Parties. Since the product not rectified by the Opposite Parties the Complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted and for the same, it would be appropriate  to order a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses would meet the ends of justice. As the 3^rd Opposite Party has not committed Deficiency in Service, the Complaint in respect of the 3^rd Opposite Party and in respect of the other relief, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

         In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly or severally are ordered to refund a sum of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand 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. In respect of other reliefs and case against the 3^rd Opposite Party is dismissed.

          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 28^th   day of December 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 21.08.2012                   Purchase bill copy

Ex.A2 dated 20.07.2013                   Job – sheet copy

Ex.A3 dated 15.11.2013                   Service center Statement copy

Ex.A4 dated 28.11.2013                   Letter & Courier Receipt copy

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   3^rd OPPOSITE PARTY:

                                      ……NIL …..                          

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT