BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
and
Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
Friday the 22nd day of September, 2006
C.C.No.15/2006
A. Rajini Babu, S/o. A. Sundar Raju, aged 22 years,
H.No.45/332-A, Labour Colony, Kurnool 518 004.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Proprietor, R.K.Communications,
40/37-j-1,Gandhi Bhavan, Near Balaji Hotel, Kurnool.
2. The Manager, Hutch Company,
6th Floor, Varun Towers 11, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500 016.
…Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Sri. M.Sivaji Rao Advocate, Kurnool for Complainant Sri. D.Kumara Swamy Advocate, Kurnool, for Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite party No.2 set exparte and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt.C Preethi, Hon’ble Lady member)
1. This Consumer complaint of the complainant is filed under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act 1986, seeking direction of opposite parties to pay cost of mobile hand set of Rs.2,699/-, Rs.15,000 as compensation for mental agony cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which complaint is entitled in the exigencies of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant on 25.11.2005 purchased a Sagem-Hutch mobile bearing number I.M.E.I. 355744001112261 for Rs.2,699 vide receipt bearing No:1355804 from opposite party No 1 and the said mobile had 12 months warranty period. After 15 days from the date of purchase the said handset stopped functioning completely. The complainant on 11.12.2005 approached opposite party No.2 to replace the defective handset with a new handset or to refund the cost of the mobile. But there was no response from opposite parties 2 on 03.01.2006 the complaint got issued a personal notice to which, also there was no response and the complainant resorted to the forum for redressal.
3. In substantiation of his case the complainant relied on the following documents Viz. (1). Cash bill receipt issue to the complainant for Rs.2,700/-.(2).
Warranty card along with terms and conditions. (3). Office copy of letter dated to 03.01.2006 addressed by complainant to opposite party No1 (4). Courier receipt as to the sending of Ex.A3 and (5) Cell phone, besides to the Sworn Affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complainant averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A5 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant alsorelied on the 3rd party affidavit of V.Sampath Kumar and caused interrogatories to opposite party No.1 and the complaint and 3rd party suitablely reply to the interrogatories caused by the opposite party No.1.
4. In pursuance the notice of this forum as to this case of complainant the opposite party No1 remained absent through out the case proceedings and opposite party No2 appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling denial written version.
5. The written version of opposite party No.2 questions the maintainability of the complainants case either in law or on facts, but submits that the cell phone purchase by the complaint was having one year warranty along with terms and conditions about the acts of the purchaser in case of problems on the purchased
article, non compliance of terms and conditions by the complainant to which act the opposite party No1 can not be made liable. The defects if any aroused in the cell phone, it is the duty of the purchaser to approach the nearest authorized service center and to rectifying problems in the said set. Simply, sending a notice to opposite party No1, and filing complaint before the Hon’ble forum against opposite party 1 and 2 is only to harass and damage the name and fame in public and to gain wrongful money with malafied intention and lastly submits that there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party No1 towards the complainant and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs.
6. In substantiation of his case the opposite party No.1 filed his Sworn Affidavit as defence and also relied on the 3rd party affidavit and caused interrogatories to the complainant and 3rd party and suitablely reply to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
7 Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties .
8. It is a simple case of the complainant that he purchased a Sagem-Hutch cell phone from opposite party No.1 vide Ex.A1 on 25.11.2005 and the said cell was covered under warranty for one year. The said cell was not properly functioning after 15 days of its purchase and on informing the said fact to the opposite party No1 there was no response, there after on 03.01.2006 the complainant caused notice Vide Ex.A3 stating the said facts and to the said notice also there was no reply from opposite party No.1. But on the other side the opposite party No.1
submits that it is responsibility of the complainant to get the defects rectified by approaching the nearest authorized service center when the defects aroused in the said cell. In this case the complainant produced the said defective cell in the forum and the said cell was taken by opposite party No1 to rectify the defects and opposite party No.1 rectified the said defects and submitted the said cell in the forum defectless and was working properly. Therefore, it is clear that the said cell was having defects at the time the complainant approached opposite party No.1 and to rectify the same the opposite party No.1 refused. After the complainant approached forum the opposite party No.1 rectified the said defects.
9. To sum up in the circumstance, discussed above there appears care less conduct of opposite party No.1 in not rectifying the defects in the said cell of the complainant on his first approach to the shop of the opposite party No.1, which is sufficient for the complainant to suffer immense embarrassment and mental
tension and agony for which the opposite parties has to compensation by paying Rs.500/- as compensation.
10. Hence, here by the deficiency of service to the complainant is made out and hence there remaining every bonafides in the complainant’s case and there by his entitleness to the reliefs sought. As the complainant is driven to the forum for redressal the complainant is entitled to costs of Rs.500/-.
11. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the complainant to take back the Ex.A5 from the forum and directing the opposite parties jointly and severely to pay to the complainant Rs. 500/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.500/- as costs with in month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties shall pay the supra awarded amount with 12% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictation to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 22nd day of September, 2006.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant: Nil For the Opposite Party : Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Cash bill dt 25.11.2005 for Rs.2,699/- issued by opposite party bearing
No:1355804.
Ex.A2 Warranty Card.
Ex.A3 Xerox copy of letter, dt 03.01.2006, addressed by complainant to opposite
Party No.1.
Ex.A4Courier receipt No.490445, dt 03.11.2006 acknowledgement of opposite party No.1.
Ex.A5 Cell phone alleged of defect.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1. Sri. M. Shivaji Rao Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. D. Kumara Swamy Advocate, Kurnool.
3. The Manager, Hutch Company, 6th Floor, Varun Towers 11, Begumpet,
Hyderabad 500 016
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties
