THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, M.A., L.L.M., President,
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Monday the 16th day of March, 2015
C.C.No.142/2014
Between:
N.V.Subba Reddy,
S/o Atchi Reddy,
Hindu, Aged 35 years, Occ.Business,
R/o H.No.87-1402-15-1,
Dhanalakshmi Nagar,
Near Kendriya Vidyalayam,
Kurnool-518 002. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Proprietor,
Sri Vidya Communications,
Area Service Center for Micro Max Mobile,
S.No.28, First Floor, U-Con Plaza,
Park Road,
Kurnool -518 001.
2. The Branch Manager,
Big C Mobiles Private Limited,
40/321/D2,
Opp.Zilla Parishad,
Kurnool-518 001. …OPPOSITE PARTIES
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of complainant for In-Person and opposite parties 1 and 2 called absent and set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member,)
C.C. No.142/2014
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying:-
- To directing the opposite parties to replace the mobile with a new one which is upgrade thereon with warranty and further.
- To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs.
- To pass any other such order as the Honourable Forum may deem fit in the circumstances of justice.
2. The facts of the complainant in brief is as under:- On 20.06.2014 the complainant purchased a Micro Max Mobile Canvas 2 Colours (IMEI No.911367103528999, Model Code.SERMOB0456) from opposite party No.2 invoice No.SI/KNL.5475 for a sum of Rs.9,630/-. Opposite party No.1 is the Area service Centre for Micro Max Mobiles at Kurnool. The opposite party No.2 issued a warranty card for a period of one year in favour of the complainant. After purchase when the complainant used it, the said mobile battery was not charged and touch screen not properly functioning. The complainant approached opposite party No.1, and gave the said mobile for repairs in the month of August, 2014 and they take a time of one month for repair, but it was not solved properly. Again the problem arose in the said mobile dated 20.11.2014 the complainant gave it for repairs to opposite party No.1 under job card No.S040089-1114-13482286. The opposite party No.1 neither repair it, nor returned it to the complainant. The complainant requested orally to repair the said mobile and return to him but the opposite parties one reason and another making promise to replace with new one, but not doing so. Due to negligent act of opposite parties, the complaint suffered mental agony. Hence this complaint.
3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 called absent and set exparte.
4. On behalf of the complainant filed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are marked and sworn affidavit of complainant is filed.
5. Written arguments not filed.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. Points i and ii:- It is the case of the complainant that he purchased Micro Max Mobile Canvas2 Colours Model Code.SERMOB0456 from opposite party No.2 for Rs.9,630/- dated 20.06.2014. The opposite party No.2 issued a warranty card for a period of one year in favour of the complainant. The purchased Bill invoice No.SI/KNL/5475 and warranty is marked as Ex.A1. The complainant in his sworn affidavit stated that the mobile was in fault for which repeated complaints were made to the opposite parties regarding charge of battery, and touch screen were not properly working. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 with a complaint that Cell Phone was not working properly. The opposite parties provided one year warranty under Ex.A1. Admittedly the problem was arose within a period of warranty it was not rectified by the opposite parties. Again on 20.11.2014 the same problem arose and the complainant gave it to opposite party No.1 for repairs, under job card No.S040089-1114-13482286 dated 20.11.2014 which is marked as Ex.A2. The complainant requested the opposite parties for replacement of mobile with a new one but the opposite parties did not respond. The opposite parties ought to have sent the defective unit to the company and brought the new unit in the place of defective cell phone. We found that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Due to the negligent attitude of opposite parties, the complainant suffered mental agony.
8. Point No.iii:- The complainant prayed to direct the opposite parties to replace the mobile with a new one which is upgrade model and further Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony. We persued all the material available on record the facts and circumstances of the case we hold an opinion that the complainant is entitled for the price amount of Rs.9,630/- or to replace the Micro Max Mobile Canvas 2 Colours model and further entitled for Rs.5,000/- for mental agony.
9. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to replace the mobile with a new one or to return the price of Mobile Rs.9,630/- and further direct to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs of the case. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 16th day of March, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite parties:- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Purchase Bill dated 20.06.2014.
Ex.A2 Servicing Center Job Card No.S040089-114-13482286 dated
20.11.2014.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
