Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/34/2016

D.Raju S/o Danappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Properitor Sri Ragavendra Communications. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.H.K.Vijayakumar

19 Oct 2016

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON : 02/05/2016

     DISPOSED ON: 19/10/2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 34/2016 DATED:  19th October 2016

 

PRESENT :-     SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH      PRESIDENT                                      B.A., LL.B.,

                        SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY             MEMBER

                                         B.A., LL.B.,                   

COMPLAINANT	D. Raju S/o Danappa, Age: 42 Years, Vijayanagar, Near NH-4, Chitradurga, Karnataka State.   (Rep by Sri. H.K. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Proprietor, Sri.Raghavendra Communications, Keerthi Plaza, 2nd Floor, HLK Road,  Chitradurga, Karnataka State.   2. The Managing Director, Lava International Ltd., A-56, Sector-64, Noida-201301, Uttar Pradesh, India.        (ex-parte)

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH. PRESIDENT.

ORDER

The complainant has filed a complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the OPs for a direction to the OPs to repair or replace Lava Mobile (Model No.IRISX9, IMEI No. 911443751802729), Rs.10,000/- towards compensation with interest, cost and such other reliefs.  

2.     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that, on 22.06.2015 he purchased LAVA Mobile with Model No.IRISX9, IMEI No.911443751802729 from OP No.1 for Rs.10,353/- manufactured by OP No.2 with 6 months guarantee/warranty.  It is further submitted that, he used the same for 3 months without any problem. But, unfortunately on 26.09.2015, when he was trying to call through the mobile, there was an error and the same has been switched off.  As the said mobile was in warranty period, immediately on the same day complainant approached OP No.1 for repair/replacement but, OP No.1 told the complainant to come after one week.  After one week complainant again approached OP No.1 i.e., on 04.10.2015 and OP No.1 has taken the details of the model and other information and send the same to OP No.2 and told the complainant to approach after 15 days.  After 15 days i.e., on 22.10.2015 complainant approached OP No.1 and in turn OP No.1 told the complainant that, he has not yet received any information from OP No.2 and send the complainant back.  Again complainant demanded the OP No.1 to repair or replace the said mobile.  Ultimately, on 02.12.2015, complainant approached OP No.1, who send the complainant to Millennium Camp Care, Vanigothra Complex, Chitradurga, the authorized service center of LAVA for repair of the said mobile.  The said  service center has given an estimation in collusion with OP No.1 and demanded for Rs.7,867/- for repair.  As the said mobile was under guarantee period, complainant refused to give the said money and taken the said mobile back.  Finally on 20.12.2015, complainant approached OP No.1 for replacement of the said mobile but, OP No.1 has given evasive reply and refused to repair or replace the same, though there was 6 months guarantee for repair or replacement.  Thereafter, on 06.01.2016 complainant issued legal notice to both the OPs calling upon them to repair or replace the mobile and also compensation of Rs.10,000/- but, none of the OPs have come forward to set right the problem.  OP No.1 gave an evasive reply.  OP Nos.1 and 2 have not performed their part of duties as per the terms and conditions and failed to discharge their obligations, which caused financial loss and mental agony and prayed for allow the complaint.

 

3. In spite of service of notice, OPs nor appeared in person or through their Advocates.  Hence, placed ex-parte.  

        4. Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and documents are marked at Ex.A-1 & Ex.A-5. 

5. Arguments heard.

 

6. Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:

 

Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proves that, OPs have committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and he is entitled for compensation as stated in his complaint?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

 

        7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:

 

        Point No.1:- Partly affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per the final order.

 

                                        ::REASONS::

 

8. Point No. 1:- It is not in dispute that, on 22.06.2015 complainant purchased LAVA Mobile with Model No.IRISX9, IMEI No.911443751802729 from OP No.1 by paying Rs.10,353/- manufactured by OP No.2 and the same was having 6 months guarantee/warranty.  But, after three months, i.e., on 26.09.2015, there was an error with said mobile and switched off.  Immediately on the same day complainant approached OP No.1 for repair/replacement, who told the complainant to come after one week.  On 04.10.2015 OP No.1 has taken the details of the model and other information and send the same to OP No.2. On 22.10.2015 complainant approached OP No.1 and in turn OP No.1 told the complainant that, he has not yet received any information from OP No.2 and send the complainant back.  Again complainant demanded the OP No.1 to repair or replace the said mobile and on 02.12.2015, complainant approached OP No.1, who send the complainant to Millennium Camp Care, Vanigothra Complex, Chitradurga, the authorized service center of LAVA for repair of the said mobile, wherein an estimation for Rs.7,867/- was given for repairs but, the complainant refused to give the said money and taken the said mobile back.  Finally on 20.12.2015, complainant approached OP No.1 for replacement of the said mobile but, OP No.1 has given evasive reply and refused to repair or replace the same, though there was 6 months guarantee for repair or replacement.  Thereafter, on 06.01.2016 complainant issued legal notice to both the OPs calling upon them to repair or replace the mobile and also compensation of Rs.10,000/- but, it went in vain.   

 

 9.    In support of his contention, complainant has relied on his affidavit evidence in which h he has reiterated the contents of complaint.  Complainant has also relied on documents like Invoice dated 22.01.2015 bearing No.1354 for Rs.10,353/-, which shows the complainant has purchased Lava Iris X9 911443751802729 mobile marked as Ex.A-1, Ex.A-2 is the Work order dated 02.12.2015 wherein it is mentioned with regard to problem description as "NOT SWITCHING ON", Symptom reported as "NOT SWITCHING ON" and the physical condition as "OK", Handset Warranty Status "Yes", Accessory Warranty "Yes" and at serial No.8 it is mentioned that, in case repair is not possible for the product covered under warranty then lava reserves the right to replace it with any other product of similar specifications, Ex.A-3 is the legal notice dated 07.01.2015, Ex.A-4 is the Postal receipt and postal acknowledgement and Ex.A-5 is the letter dated 08.02.2016 from the Postal Authority stating the notice issued to OP No.2 was delivered on 12.01.2016.

10.   We have carefully gone through the complaint, affidavit and the documents filed by complainant.  It is seen that, On 22.06.2015 complainant purchased LAVA Mobile with Model No.Iris X9, IMEI No.911443751802729 for Rs.10,353/- from OP No.1 which was manufactured by OP No.2.  But, after 3 months, the said mobile was having manufacturing defects.  Immediately, i.e., on 26.09.2015 complainant approached OP No.1 and informed about the defects found in the said mobile.  OP No.1 told the complainant to come after one week and after one week OP No.2 has taken details of the mobile and told the complainant to come after 15 days for repair or replacement.  After 15 days, complainant approached OP No.1 to get the repair or replacement of the mobile.  Finally, on 02.12.2015, OP No.1 send the complainant to Millennium Camp Care, Chitradurga, wherein the said service center demand for payment of Rs.7,867/- for repairs though the said mobile was under guarantee/warranty period, which is against to the terms and conditions. In the work order issued by the service center of Lava itself it is mentioned that, in case repair is not possible for the product covered under warranty then lava reserves the right to replace it with any other product of similar specifications .  In this case, the mobile hand set purchased by the complainant was having problem within the warranty period i.e., after three months from the date of purchase, the said problem is to be cured by the OPs but, the OPs failed to cure/set right the problem in the handset, which is a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, for which the complainant is liable to be compensated.  Accordingly, we answer the Point No.1 held as partly affirmative.                

11.  Point No.2:- For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following.

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to repair the mobile within 15 days from the date of this order.  If fails to repair the same, OPs are hereby directed to replace the mobile within one month from the date of this order. 

If fails to repair or replace the mobile, OPs are hereby directed to refund Rs.10,353/- to the complainant, Rs.10,000/- as compensation in all Rs.20,353/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a to the complainant from the date of complaint till realization.

It is further ordered that, the complainant is hereby  directed to handover the mobile to OP No.1 within 15 days.

        (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 02/09/2016 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)

 

 

 

MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

 

Complainant by filing affidavit evidence taken as PW-1

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

 -Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Invoice dated 22.01.2015 bearing No.1354 for Rs.10,353/-
02	Ex-A-2:-	Work order dated 02.12.2015
03	Ex.A-3:-	Legal notice dated 07.01.2015
04	Ex.A-4:-	Postal receipt and postal acknowledgement
05	Ex.A-5:-	Letter dated 08.02.2016 from the Postal Authority

Documents marked on behalf of Opponent:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

Rhr.