Dr.P.Rekha filed a consumer case on 26 May 2016 against The Proprietor, Anbu cell city in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is CC/20/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 14 Jun 2016.
Complaint presented on : 12.01.2015
Order pronounced on : 26.05.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd 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
THURSDAY THE 26th DAY OF MAY 2016
C.C.NO.20/2015
Dr.P.Rekha,
No.47, 3rd Street,
Vyasar Colony,
Chennai – 600 039
..... Complainant
..Vs..
1. The Proprietor,
Anbu Cell City,
No.11/2, Kasi Chetty Lane,
Chennai – 600 079.
2.Mobile India,
No.2/49, North Main Road,
West CIT Nagar,
T.Nagar,
Chennai - 600 017.
3.The Managing Director,
United Telelinks (Bangalore) Ltd.,
No.39/13, Appa Reddy Palya Main Road,
Off 7th Main Hal 2nd Stage,
Indira Nagar,
Bangalore – 560 038.
| ||
.....Opposite Parties |
|
Date of complaint 23.01.2015
Counsel for Complainant : Party in person
Counsel for 1st Opposite Party : M/s.S.Manohar
Counsel for 2nd & 3rd opposite parties : Ex - parte
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 is a doctor who had purchased a Karbonn Mobile A12 + on 10.02.2014 for consideration of Rs.5,250/- from the 1st Opposite Party. The warranty is for a period of one year. On the very next day of purchase the mobile did not get charge properly and light in the screen was blinking. The Complainant immediately informed the defects to the 1st Opposite Party and he replied that those are not actual problems and the same are characteristic in a normal android phone. Believing his words the Complainant returned with phone, however the product getting worst within a week time. Further, though the product charged 100% fully, it did not stand even for an hour. On contacting the 1st Opposite Party, he informed that it was a problem in the charger and problem in the software of the product. Though they have changed the charger they did not repair the product and refused to give any job sheet or voucher. Again they checked and informed that charging pin problem and also problem in the board and it would take 3 weeks time to get spare parts. When the Complainant approached after 3 weeks they said parts are yet to arrive. However the product gets switched off automatically and did not get switch on easily and it gets on only after trying many times and also have problems with the touch screen. The 2nd & 3rd Opposite Parties are the manufacturers. The Complainant sent legal notice to the Opposite Parties and they did not reply for the same. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties for deficiencies committed by them seeking various reliefs including compensation.
2. Though the 2nd & 3rd received notice they did not appear and hence they were set ex-parte.
3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
This Opposite Party admits that he sold Karbonn mobile to the Complainant and he is not a manufacturer or distributor. The Complainant purchased the mobile after being fully satisfied with the performance of the product. This Opposite Party denies that the Complainant approached him on 11.02.2014 and 18.02.2014 with the product. The Complainant gave a letter dated 20.05.2014 to this Opposite Party and he sent a reply dated 26.05.2014 to her. The Complainant never sent any other letter to this Opposite Party. The other averments made in the Complaint are strictly denied and the same have to be proved by the Complainant. Absolutely this Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.
4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?
5. POINT NO:1
It is an admitted fact that the Complainant purchased a Karbonn A12 + mobile from the 1st Opposite Party for a consideration of Rs.5,250/- and the 1st Opposite Party issued Ex.A1 cash bill for the product.
6. According to the Complainant the deficiencies are that the very next day of purchase of the product, she faced problems in the mobile that it did not get charged properly and the light in the screen was blinking and then she contacted the 1st Opposite Party and after that though the battery shown as fully charged as 100% ,it did not stands even for an hour and the 1st Opposite Party gave a another charger saying that it was some problem in the charger and even after that the product switched off automatically and did not get switch on easily and it gets switch on after trying many times and therefore the product is a defective one, the 2nd & 3rd Opposite Parties are the manufacturer of the product and therefore the Opposite Parties are liable for the above said deficiencies.
7. The 2nd & 3rd Opposite Parties remained ex-parte. The 1st Opposite Party would contend that he only sold the mobile to her and after that date she never approached him for any defect in the product and he gave reply dated 26.05.2014 for the letter of the Complainant dated 20.05.2015 and therefore he prays to dismiss the Complaint in respect of him.
8. The 1st Opposite Party is only a seller of the product to the Complainant. It is not the case of the Complainant that the 1st Opposite Party is neither an authorized service provider of the 2nd & 3rd Opposite Parties/ Manufacturer nor the 1st Opposite Party doing service to the Karbonn mobiles. Absolutely there is no document available to prove that she approached the 1st Opposite Party to rectify the defects. The Complainant sent Ex.A3 letter to the 1st & 3rd Opposite Parties disclosing the deficiencies in the product. The 1st Opposite Party gave Ex.A4 reply to the Complainant. However the 3rd Opposite Party did not give any reply. Though the 2nd & 3rd Opposite Parties received notice in the Complaint, they did not appear and remained ex-parte. Therefore there is no contra evidence on behalf of the 2nd & 3rd Opposite Parties. The deficiencies alleged that the light screen was blinking and battery did not stand for an hour and mobile frequently and also automatically got switched off, leads to an irresistible conclusion that the product is having manufacturing defects and therefore it is held that the 2nd & 3rd Opposite Parties committed Deficiency in Service.
9. In Ex.A1bill issued by the 1st Opposite Party, it has been stated that “All warranty & service complaints belongs to direct company only”. In view of such condition stated in the bill even for service of the product the Complainant has to approach only the 2nd & 3rd Opposite Parties. As the 1st Opposite Party is only a seller of the product we hold that he has not committed any deficiencies in respect of manufacturing of the product.
10.POINT NO:2
Since the product is having manufacturing defect and the Complainant unable to use the product from the next day onwards, the request of the Complainant to refund the cost of the product of Rs.5,250/- is justifiable and it can be ordered in her favour. Due to the deficiency in the product the Complainant suffered with mental agony is acceptable and for the same it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation would be a reasonable besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. However the Complainant sustained loss of income in her profession is not acceptable.
In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The 2nd & 3rd Opposite Parties are jointly or severally ordered to refund a sum of Rs.5,250/- (Rupees five thousand two hundred and fifty only) towards cost of the product to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. 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. The Complaint in respect of the 1st Opposite Party is dismissed.
Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 26th day of May 2016.
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 dated 10.02.2014 Bill
Ex.A2 dated 20.05.2014 Register Letter’s Receipt
Ex.A3 dated 20.05.2014 Letter of the Complainant to Opposite Party No.1
Ex.A4 dated 26.05.2014 Letter of the Opposite Party No.1 to the
Complainant
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1st OPPOSITE PARTY:
……NIL……
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.