Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/20/2015

Dr.P.Rekha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Anbu cell city - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

26 May 2016

ORDER

                                                              Complaint presented on :  12.01.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on  :  26.05.2016

 

 

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

 

THURSDAY  THE  26^th   DAY OF MAY 2016

 

C.C.NO.20/2015

 

 

Dr.P.Rekha,

No.47, 3^rd 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 7^th Main Hal 2^nd Stage,

Indira Nagar,

Bangalore – 560 038.

	.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  23.01.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in person

Counsel for  1^st Opposite Party                      : M/s.S.Manohar

Counsel for 2^nd & 3^rd 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 1^st 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 1^st 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 1^st 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 2^nd & 3^rd 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 2^nd & 3^rd received notice they did not appear and hence they were set ex-parte.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st  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 1^st Opposite Party for a consideration of Rs.5,250/- and the 1^st 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 1^st Opposite Party and after that though the  battery shown as fully charged as 100% ,it did not stands even for an hour and the 1^st 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 2^nd  & 3^rd Opposite Parties are the manufacturer of the product and therefore the Opposite Parties are liable for the above said deficiencies.

          7. The 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties remained ex-parte. The 1^st 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 1^st Opposite Party is only a seller of the product to the Complainant.  It is not the case of the Complainant that the 1^st Opposite Party is neither an authorized service provider of the 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties/ Manufacturer nor the 1^st Opposite Party doing service to the Karbonn mobiles.  Absolutely there is no document available to prove that she approached the 1^st Opposite Party to rectify the defects. The Complainant sent Ex.A3 letter to the 1^st & 3^rd Opposite Parties disclosing the deficiencies in the product.   The 1^st Opposite Party gave Ex.A4 reply to the Complainant. However the 3^rd Opposite Party did not give any reply. Though the 2^nd & 3^rd 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 2^nd & 3^rd 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 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties committed Deficiency in Service.

9. In Ex.A1bill issued by the 1^st 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  2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties. As the 1^st 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 2^nd & 3^rd  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 1^st Opposite Party is dismissed.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 26^th 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 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY:

                                      ……NIL……

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT