Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/76/2016

Sri Lakshman V Sain S/o Vagtaram - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor,sri sai mobiles and gift gallery - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.C.J.Lakshminarasimha

16 Dec 2016

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON : 10/08/2016

     DISPOSED ON: 16/12/2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

CC. NO. 76/2016 DATED:  16th December 2016

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

                        SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY             MEMBER

                                         B.A., LL.B.,                   

COMPLAINANT

Lakmaram V. Sain, S/o Vagtaram, Age: 25 Years, Business, Varsha Fancy Stores, 4th Cross, JCR Extension, Chitradurga, R/o Burujanahatti Circle Down, Holalkere Road, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. C.J. Lakshiminarasimha, Advocate)

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The Proprietor, Sri Sai Mobiles and Gift Gallery, Dealers for Mobile Handsets, Sim Cards, Currencies, Crackers, Computer Spare Parts and Electronic Goods, Sridevi Complex, I Floor, Near Santhepete Circle, B.D. Road, Chitradurga.   2. Sri Raghavendra Communications, Authorized District Distributors for Xolo(Lava) Mobile Handsets, Keerthi Plaza, Upstairs to Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., II Floor, Holalkere Road, Chitradurga.   3. Authorized Officer/Authorized Manager, Millenium Camp Care Center, Behind Bata Show Room, Vanigothra Complex, B.D. Road, Chitradurga.   4. The Authorized Signatory/Customer Care Officer, Lava International Limited, A-56, Sector-64, Noida-201301, UP, India.    (ex-parte)

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, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.5,000/- towards damages, Rs.5,000/- towards costs and such other reliefs.  

2.     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that, on 12.11.2015 complainant purchased Lava Pixel V2 Mobile vide IME No.911469401033506 under Bill No.5364 by paying Rs.10,000/- from OP No.1, who is a dealer manufactured by OP No.2 with warranty period of one year from the date of purchase, OP No.1 undertaking to rectify/repair the same within warranty period under the influence of the Distributor, Service Center and Manufacturer.  After purchasing the said handset within 1-2 months, it was not functioning properly i.e., problem with the audio, switched off and on suddenly and will take long time to work on, software problems, no battery backup and other unexplained problems found in the handset with heavy manufacturing defects.  Complainant contacted OP No.1 for getting repair of the same but, OP No.1 told the complainant to approach OP No.2 and 3.  As per the instructions of OP No.2, complainant approached OP No.3 in the month of January 2016, who partly repaired the same and handed over to the complainant but, the same problems continued in the handset.  Again complainant gave the said handset to OP No.3 on 12.02.2016 and 13.02.2016 for repairs but, OP No.3 told the complainant that the problems found in the handset are purely manufacturing defects and given an estimation for Rs.7,924/- instead of repairing the same with free of cost as the same is within the warranty period and OP No.2 and 3 have refused to repair the same with free of cost and OP No.3 instructed the complainant to approach OP No.4 for replacing the same.  Complainant is facing very huge problems in the handset since from the date of purchase but, the OPs have not attended/cured/rectified the above said problems found in the handset, for which the complainant fed up with the attitude and negligence of the OPs.  Complainant is doing business and usage of the handset is necessary for his day to day affairs and due to ill-will, negligent service, and deficiency of service shows the intentional attitude of the OPs caused mental stress, inconvenience, lack of communication, loss of expenditure and also caused financial loss to the complainant.  Therefore, complainant issued Legal Notice through his Advocate to OPs through RPAD on 08.07.2016 but, the same was not replied.  Complainant approached OPs several times to get repair the said handset or to replace the same but, the OPs failed to cure the problems found in the mobile handset or to replace the same as the same is within the warranty period but, it went in vain, which is a deficiency of service and prayed for allow the complaint.

 

3. Inspite of service of notice, OPs nor appeared in person or through their Advocates.  Hence, placed ex-parte. 

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

5.     Arguments heard.

 

6. 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?

 

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

        Point No.1:- Partly affirmative.

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

                                        ::REASONS::

 

8. Point No. 1:- It is not in dispute that, on 12.11.2015 complainant purchased Lava Pixel V2 Mobile vide IME No.911469401033506 under Bill No.5364  by paying Rs.10,000/- from OP No.1, who is a dealer manufactured by OP No.2 with warranty period of one year from the date of purchase. After purchasing the said handset within a span of 1-2 months, it was not functioning properly i.e., problem with the audio, switched off and on suddenly and will take long time to work on, software problems, no battery backup and other unexplained problems found in the handset with heavy manufacturing defects.  Complainant approached OP No.1 to get repair the same but, OP No.1 told the complainant to approach OP No.2 and 3.  Complainant approached OP No.3 in the month of January 2016, who partly repaired the same and handed over to the complainant but, the same problems continued in the handset.  Again complainant gave the said handset to OP No.3 on 12.02.2016 and 13.02.2016 for repairs but, OP No.3 told the complainant that the problems found in the handset are purely manufacturing defects and given an estimation for Rs.7,924/- instead of repairing the same with free of cost as the same is within the warranty period.  OP No.3 instructed the complainant to approach OP No.4 for replacing the same.  Complainant is facing very huge problems in the handset since from the date of purchase but, the OPs have not attended above said problems found in the handset. Complainant is doing business and usage of the handset is necessary for his day to day affairs.  Therefore, complainant issued Legal Notice through his Advocate to OPs through RPAD on 08.07.2016 but, the same was not replied.  Complainant approached OPs several times to get repair the said handset or to replace the same but, the OPs failed to cure the problems found in the mobile handset or to replace the same as the same is within the warranty period, which is a deficiency of service.

 

 9.    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 Legal Notice dated 08.07.2016 marked as Ex.A-1, Postal Receipt marked as Ex.A-2, Postal Acknowledgement marked as Ex.A-3 and Cash Bill dated 12.11.2015 for having purchased the mobile handset marked as Ex.A-4.

 

10.   After service of notice, OPs failed to appear before the Forum to disprove the contention of the complainant alleged in the complaint.  

 

  

11.   We have carefully gone through the complaint, version affidavit evidence and the documents. It is seen that, on 12.11.2015 complainant purchased Lava Pixel V2 Mobile Handset bearing IMEI No.911469401033506 by paying an amount of Rs.10,000/- with warranty period of one year from OP No.1 who is a dealer and OP No.2 is the Distributor.  It is evident from Ex.A-4 the Cash Bill dated 12.11.2015 that, complainant has purchased LAVA Pixel V2 by paying a sum of Rs.10,000/-.  But, within a span of 1-2 months the said handset starts giving problem i.e., failure of audio, switched off and switched on suddenly and takes long time to work on, no battery backup and software problem.  Complainant approached the OPs 2 and 3 several times, they have repaired the same but, it did not cure.  Finally OP No.3 told the complainant that, the said handset is purely with manufacturing defects and given an estimation for Rs.7,924/- towards repair charges though the same is within the warranty period and instructed to approach OP No.4, the manufacturer.  The mobile hand set purchased by the complainant was having problem within the warranty period i.e., after one to two months from the date of purchase, the said problem is to be cured by the OP 2 to 4 but, they 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.  When the property purchased by the customer is giving problem and the same is having manufacturing defects, the same is to be cured by the service provider/manufacturer.  OPs did not appear before the Forum to disbelieve the contention taken by the complainant in the complaint. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, the OPs 2 to 4 have committed a deficiency of service on the part.  OP No1 is only a dealer, he cannot do the repair work or replace the handset and therefore, the complaint as against OP No.1 is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, we answer the Point No.1 held as affirmative.                

12.  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 allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP No.1 to 4 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-, towards the cost of mobile and Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony to the complainant in all a sum of Rs.30,000/- 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. 

Complainant as against OP No.1 is dismissed.

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 16/12/2016 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)

 

 

 

MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Complainant by filing affidavit evidence taken as PW-1

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Legal notice dated 15.04.2016
02	Ex-A-2:-	Postal receipt
03	Ex.A-3:-	Postal acknowledgement
04	Ex.A-4:-	Cash Bill dated 12.11.2015 for having purchased the mobile handset marked

Documents marked on behalf of Opponents:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

Rhr.