Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/62/2014

Sattenapalli Rama Mohan , S/o. S.Hanumanthaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Person in charge, Samsung India Electronics Pvt., Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M.Vani

12 Oct 2015

ORDER

                                                                                                Filing Date:-10-11-2014                                                                                                               Order Date:-12-10-2015.

 

        BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,   

                                                                TIRUPATI.

PRESENT: - SRI.M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT.

                                                 SMT.T.ANITHA, MEMBER

       MONDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND             

                                                               AND FIFTEEN.

C.C.No.62/2014

Between

Sathenapalli Rama Mohan, S/o. S.Hanumanthaiah,

Hindu, aged about 38 years, Private Employee,

Residing at D.No.6-1-12-E3, Jampala Buildings,

First Floor, Bhavani Nagar, Near Rajanna Park,

Tirupati.                                                                                       

                                                                                                         …. Complainant

And

i) The Person in Charge,

Samsung India Electronics Pvt., Ltd.,

B1, Sector 81, Phase 2, Noida District,

Gautham Budh Nagar, U.P.

 

ii) The Proprietor,

VMC Mobiles, 13-3-313, Tilak Road,

Opp. Nimmakayala Street, Tirupati.

 

iii) The Manager,

Samsung authorized service centre,

10-13-545, Reddy and Reddy Colony,

Tirupati.

 .                                                                                                       …. Opposite parties

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 22.09.2015 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of  M.Vani, counsel for the complainant, and Sri. K.Suresh, counsel for the opposite party No.1 and Sri. P.Anand, counsel for the opposite party No.3 and counsel for the opposite party no.2 remained exparte having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           This complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties for selling the defective Cell Phone to the complainant and failed to rectify the defect.

           2. The brief facts of the case are: The complainant purchased a mobile phone on 01-04-2014 of ‘Samsung Mobile’ Model No.GT-S7582 bearing IMEI NO.352159062193279 from the 2^nd opposite party mobile shop which is manufactured by 1^st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.10,000/- and the cell phone got one year warranty period.  The complainant submits that right from the day one of the purchase the said mobile is not been working properly and he used to face problems like low battery backup, defective touch screen and other problems. The complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party that is the service centre with the advice of 2nd opposite party and it was handed over to the 3^rd opposite party for service and 3^rd opposite party handed over the cell phone on 07-06-2014 as if the cell phone was repaired.  But shortly it was found to be not properly functioning, hence with no option again he took the same to the 3^rd opposite party, but they reported that the mother board of the said mobile needs to be changed. The complainant was very much shocked to hear the same and it became clear to him that the said mobile suffers from a manufacturing defect. Hence he requested the opposite parties to replace the said mobile with a new one in the place of old one, as by the date of service the said mobile got warranty period. But they failed to oblige the same. Hence he caused a legal notice on 26-06-2014 calling upon the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile or to refund the sale consideration. But after receipt of the said notice the 3^rd opposite party sent a letter dated 19-07-2014 to the complainant saying that his mobile is in perfect working condition and asked him to come and collect the mobile from their service centre After receipt of the said letter the complainant collected his mobile from opposite party no.3 but there was no improvement in the condition of the said mobile. The complainant further submits that he purchased the said mobile on 01.04.2014 from the date of the purchase it is not working properly and hence there is no possibility of the said mobile getting repaired on account of the manufacturing defect,  he had been facing problem with the said mobile from the date of purchase. Hence he filed the present complaint by praying this Honourable Forum to replace the defective mobile that a brand new one or to refund the cost of the mobile Rs.10,000/- and to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards damages for mental agony and hardship and to pay costs of the complaint.

          3. The opposite parties 1 & 3 came into appearance and filed their written versions, and opposite party no.2 remained absent and set exparte .The opposite party no.1 filed the written version by admitting the sale of the mobile phone from the opposite party no.2 and denied the rest of the allegations made by the complainant. The opposite party no.1 further submits that the complainant approached their service centre first time on 16-05-2014 with a complaint of low battery backup. Accordingly the job sheet was issued and thorough verification the battery was replaced. There after the mobile is in good  condition but the complainant in order to harass them, he approached the service centre on 07-06-2014 contending that there was no battery back up, automatic hanging of the mobile, Bluetooth and direct calling. The mobile thoroughly checked and found to be in good condition and there is no defect what so ever. Again they issued a letter on 19-07-2014 informing the complainant to receive the mobile by the complainant from the authorized service centre which is in perfect condition. But in stead of receiving the said mobile the complainant approached this Forum with all false allegations and also stated that they are ready to demonstrate before this Forum that the mobile is in good condition. Hence the complainant in order to get wrongful gain he approached this Forum. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties.

          4. The opposite party no.3 filed the written version by denying the allegations made in the complaint except the purchase of the mobile and stated that the complainant approached them on 16-05-2014 for the repair of the said mobile. But they attended the repair and replace the new batteries in the place of old battery. Again he approached on 16-06-2014 by stating some other problems like no battery back up, automatic hanging, blue tooth and direct calling. On the same day this opposite party technician thoroughly checked the mobile and found no defect in the mobile and the mobile is in perfect condition. The said mobile was in custody of the complainant. But the opposite party utter surprised after seeing the contents of the notice and sent a reply to the complainant by way of register post same was received by the complainant. The opposite party no.3 further stated that the complainant approached this opposite party and their technician a demo conducted in the presence of the complainant and after satisfying he received the mobile. But the complainant suppressed all these facts and filed the false complaint in order to get wrongful gain in order to harass the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.   

          5. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked Exs. A1 to A5.   Evidence affidavit of opposite party no.1 filed and no documents was filed on behalf of the opposite party no.1, opposite party no.3 filed Evidence affidavit along with one document which is marked as Ex.B1. Written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 3 were filed and oral arguments were heard.           

               On the basis of the pleadings, affidavits, and documents filed by both parties the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the mobile purchased by the complainant is having any 

                          manufacturing defect?

            (ii)      Whether there is any   deficiency of service on part of the opposite   

                       Parties?

(iii)       Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

           (iv)       To What  result?    

         

          6. Point No:-(i)&(ii).  There is no dispute regarding the purchase of cell phone from the opposite party No. 2’s shop and the same is admitted by the opposite party no.1. As per the contention of the complainant, from the date of the purchase, the said cell phone is not working properly.  Hence, he approached the opposite party no.3 several times for getting it repaired, but the opposite party no.3 did not render their service properly by rectifying the defect in the said phone. At last, on 07-06-2014 the complainant has handed over the said cell phone to opposite party no.3 and the opposite party no.3 failed to rectify the same and after receipt of the legal notice issued by the complainant, the opposite party no.3 issued one reply letter dated 19.07.2014 calling upon the complainant to collect the cell phone from their service station after receipt of the letter the complainant approached op no.3 and received the cell  phone after through demo given by opposite party no.3 that the cell phone is in perfect condition. But the complainant stated that shortly from the date of delivery the said cell phone is not working hence he approached the opposite party no.3, after checking the mobile by the opposite party no.3 stated that the mother board has to be changed. But the  opposite parties contended that the cell phone in question is in perfect working condition in order to get wrongful gain the complainant filed the above case. If it is so the complainant has not purchased the cell phone for pleasure and there is also no reason to hold that the complainant has unnecessarily complaining defect in the cell phone.  If that is so, the opposite parties could have appeared and demonstrated that the cell phone is in perfect condition.  As the opposite parties failed to prove the same and simply oppose the contentions of the complainant, it clearly shows that that the cell phone is having defect which cannot be rectified. Hence, the cell phone purchased by the complainant is defective nature. That itself clearly shows that there is a deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties in rectify the defect and also by rendering the services to their customers.

          The interest shown by the opposite parties while promoting their sales is not shown at the time of rendering services to the customers, this itself clearly shows that there is deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties towards the complainant.

          8.Point No (iii):-   In view of your finding on point no.(i) and (ii) the complainant is entitled for the price of the cell phone of Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of realization and entitled for compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony suffered by him and also Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

         9. PointNo (iv):-   In the Result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 refund the cost of the mobile of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousands only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of realization and further directed to pay Rs.2,000/-( rupees two thousands only) towards compensation for mental agony  and deficiency of service and to pay Rs.2,000/- ( rupees two thousands only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite parties further directed to comply with the order within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which the compensation Rs.2,000/-(rupees two thousands only) shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till realization.

         Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 12^th day of October, 2015.

       Sd/-                                                                                                                   Sd/-

Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

C.C.No.62/2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainants.

 

PW-1: Sattenapalli Rama Mohan (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Parties.

 

RW-1: Shriniwas Joshi (Evidence Affidavit filed).

RW-2: M. Rama Krishna (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTs

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Cash Bill issued by the Opposite Party No.2. Bill No.266. (Original) Dt: 01.04.2014.
	Warranty Card. Dt: 01.04.2014. (Original).
	Photo copy of Job card issued by the Opposite Party No.3. Dt: 07.06.2014. Token No. 3093.
	Office copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the Opposite Party, along with postal receipts. Dt: 26.06.2014
	Letter sent by Opposite Party No.3. to the complainant. Dt: 19.07.2014.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTYs

 

Exhibits   (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
1.	Acknowledgement of Service Request. Bill No. 4173857628. Dt: 16.05.2014.

 

                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                                                                       President

                                                          

 

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to: - 1. The complainant.

                   2. The opposite parties.