Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/36/2016

Sri.Chethan S/o Late K.P.Ramakrishnaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Properitor/Authorised signatory,M/S Vittal Mobiles. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.G.Sreepathi

25 Oct 2016

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON : 05/05/2016

     DISPOSED ON: 25/10/2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 36/2016 DATED:  25th October 2016

 

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

                        SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY             MEMBER

                                         B.A., LL.B.,                   

COMPLAINANT	Chethan /o Late K.P. Ramakrishnaiah, 28 Years, R/o Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Uduvalli Post, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. G. Sreepahti, Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Proprietor/Authorised Signatory, M/s Vittaal Mobiles, Sri Shaila Road, Hiriyur, Chitradurga District.   2. Bhanu Prakash, Intex Technology India Ltd., I Floor, New Raja Building, Above Andhra Bank, N.R. Road, Bangalore-560002.     (Rep by Sri. H. Manjappa, Advocate for OP No.1)

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 return the value of Mobile with interest at 12% p.a, Rs.15,000/- towards compensation, Rs.5,000/- towards damages and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.  

2.     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that, on 22.01.2016 he purchased INTEX TURBO 4G Mobile vide IME No.911467250621066, Battery No.163592 and Charger No.182926 by paying Rs.7,000/- under Bill No.18926 dated 22.01.2016 with warranty but, OPs have not filled the warranty card and also they have not put their seal and signature, which is an unfair trade practice.  It is further submitted that, the said mobile was working properly for two months only and thereafter problem started i.e., the set will get heated and screen will become blank automatically often and often from 24^th March 2016.  Complainant approached the OPs and intimated about the same, but the OPs have not responded properly and failed to rectify the problems in the mobile.  Due to the said defects in the mobile complainant faced deficiency in service apart from mental agony and he use to make calls from other phone/coin box.  On 15.04.2016 complainant issued legal notice to the OP but, failed to reply he same.  The cause of action arose to file this complaint was on 22.01.2016 i.e., from the date of purchase and on 15.04.2016 i.e., the rate of issuance of legal notice. OPs 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. On service of notice, OPs appeared through Sri. H. Manjappa, Advocate and filed version admitting about purchasing of Intex Turbo 4G mobile on 21.01.2016 by making payment of Rs.7,000/-.  It is denied that, the said mobile was working properly for two months and after that, the problem started i.e., the display of the screen will become blank and the same persisted often and often from 24.03.2016, for which complainant approached the OP and the OP did not respond and failed to rectify the mistake.  It is further submitted that, after service of notice, OP communicated and requested the complainant to make it repair the mobile with Blue Wave Communication, SYB Complex, Near Azam Masjid, SS Road, Hiriyur or any other service center as free service within warranty period but, complainant did not turn up.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.  It is further submitted that, complainant also issued notice to Sri. Thippeswamy Communications, Hiriyur and it is the habit of the complainant to issue such type of notice to get unlawful gain and this complaint is not maintainable and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

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

5.     On behalf of OPs affidavit of Sri.A. Panduranga, Proprietor of OP No.1 by filing affidavit evidence and no documents have been produced.

6. Arguments heard.

 

7. 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?

 

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

 

        Point No.1:- Partly affirmative.

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

 

                                        ::REASONS::

 

9. Point No. 1:- It is not in dispute that, on 22.01.2016 complainant purchased INTEX TURBO 4G Mobile vide IME No.911467250621066 for Rs.7,000/- under Bill No.18926 dated 22.01.2016 with warranty from OP No.1.  After two months, the said mobile was giving problem i.e., the set will get heated and screen will become blank automatically. Complainant approached the OPs and intimated about the same, but the OPs have not responded and failed to rectify the problems in the said mobile, for which complainant faced deficiency in service apart from mental agony. On 15.04.2016 complainant issued legal notice to the OP but, OPs have not performed their part of duties as per the terms and conditions and failed to discharge their obligations.

 

 10.  In support of his contention, complainant has relied on his affidavit evidence in which he has reiterated the contents of complaint.  Complainant has also relied on documents like Bill dated 22.01.2016 bearing No.18926 for Rs.7,000/-, which shows the complainant has purchased Intex Turbo 4G Mobile under IME No.911467250621066 for Rs.7,000/- marked as Ex.A-1,  warranty card marked as Ex.A-2, legal notice dated 15.04.2016 marked as Ex.A-3 postal receipt marked as Ex.A-4 and postal acknowledgement marked as Ex.A-5.

 

11.   In support of his contention, complainant has also relied on a decision reported in 2010 CJ 1024 Chandi in the case of India Times Shopping and Another Vs. Shivanand Narain and Others where in it has been held as under:

 

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o), 2(1)(r) 14(1)(d), 15 and 17 – Mobile Phone – Sale through internet – Supply of defective mobile set – Appellant directed by District Forum to refund price of mobile set along with compensation of Rs.15,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- - Appellants were actively participating in whole transaction and acted as agents of manufacturer, whose service were availed by complainant for purchasing mobile set and paid amount to them – Being agents of manufacturer, they were also equally liable for acts of their principal – District Forum rightly held appellants liable equally with other OPs in refunding price of mobile set along with compensation and costs – Appeal dismissed.

 

  

12.   It is argued by the OP and admitting about purchasing of Intex Turbo 4G mobile on 21.01.2016 by making payment of Rs.7,000/-.  It is denied that, the complainant approached the OP and the OP did not respond and failed to rectify the mistake.  After receipt of notice, OP communicated and requested the complainant to make it repair the mobile with Blue Wave Communication, SYB Complex, Near Azam Masjid, SS Road, Hiriyur or any other service center as free service within warranty period but, complainant did not turn up and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.  Complainant also issued notice to Sri. Thippeswamy Communications, Hiriyur and it is the habit of the complainant to issue such type of notice to get unlawful gain.

13.   We have carefully gone through the complaint, version affidavit evidence and the documents. It is seen that, On 22.01.2016 complainant purchased Intex Turbo 4G mobile under Bill No.18926 by paying Rs.7,000/- as evident from Ex.A-1 and the same was carrying warranty of one year as per Ex.A-2.  In the warranty card at serial No.4 it is mentioned that, the company or its authorized ICP/service dealer reserves the right to retain any parts of the component/s replaced at its discretion in the event of the defect being noticed in the equipment during the warranty period.  Here, the mobile purchased by the complainant was giving problem within few days i.e., after two months from the date of its purchase.  But, the OP never come forward to solve the problem in the mobile.  The notice issued by the complainant was not replied .  The OP taken a contention that, complainant never visited their mobile shop and he never stated any problem to the OP.  Complainant approached OP No.1 and informed about the defects found in the said mobile and requested to set right the problem, but OP did not come forward to cure the same.  The decision relied on by the complainant is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case on hand.          In this case, the mobile hand set purchased by the complainant was having problem within the warranty period i.e., after two 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.                

14.  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 OP No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/-, the cost of mobile and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation, in all Rs.17,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a to the complainant from the date of complaint till realization. 

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby  directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceeding. 

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days.

        (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 025/10/2016 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)

 

 

 

MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Complainant by filing affidavit evidence taken as PW-1

Sri.A. Panduranga, Proprietor of OP No.1 by filing affidavit evidence as DW-1.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Bill dated 22.01.2016 bearing No.18926 for Rs.7,000/-
02	Ex-A-2:-	Warranty card
03	Ex.A-3:-	Legal notice dated 15.04.2016
04	Ex.A-4:-	Postal receipt
05	Ex.A-5:-	Postal acknowledgement

 

Documents marked on behalf of Opponent:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

Rhr.