Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/8/2018

Sri.S.Nagaraja S/o V.Sharanappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor/The Authorized Signatory,Sangeetha Mobiles Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.C.J.Lakshminarasimha

30 Jun 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:22.01.2018

DISPOSED      ON:30.06.2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 8/2018

 

DATED:  30^th JUNE 2018

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

                   SRI. N. THIPPESWAMY               :MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B., PGD., CLP., 

 

……COMPLAINANT	Sri.S.Nagaraja S/o V.Sharanappa, Age:30 years, Opposite to Sangeetha Mobiles Pvt Ltd., B.D Road, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Proprietor/The Authorized Signatory, Sangeetha Mobiles Pvt Ltd., Besides Srinivasa Stores, B.D Road,Near Shankar Talkies, Chitradurga.   2. The Authorized Signatory,Mobile Technologies, Authorized Gionee Mobile Service Center, SBM Road, Mruthunjaya Complex, Chitradurga.   3. The Authorized Signatory, Gionee India Pvt Ltd.,(formerly Syntech Technologies Pvt Ltd.,),E-9, Block No.81, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.   4. The Authorized officer/ The Authorized Signatory, Rising stars Mobile India Pvt Ltd.,No.215, Sector 24, Benjamin road, Challamutur (V), Varadaiahpalem(M), Chittor District, Andhrapradesh-517541.   (Rep by Sri.H.S. Satyanarayana Setty, Advocate for OP No.1 and 2, OP No.3 and 4 ex-parte)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH    : PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to refund the handset price of Rs.14,600-64 along with interest @ 2% p.m, Rs.40,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.15,000/- towards legal notice charges and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant E¸À that, above said OP No.1 is the dealer for Gionee Mobile Hand Sets and all the OPs are well aware that the Complainant has purchased one Gionee mobile hand set bearing model No.A1 LITE Gold Gionee on 02.09.2017 for Rs.14,600-64. At the time of purchase of the said hand set, the OP No.1 has given a warranty for the said Mobile Hand Set for a period of one year + one year i.e, 1+1 year  from the date of purchase as per the company norms and conditions to the above said hand set and also undertake to rectify and repair the said hand set if any damages, problems, defects, deformities or any other manufacture defects arises in the said hand set during the said warranty period under the influence of the distributor, service center and manufacturer. On the basis of said assurance given by the OP No.1 on behalf of OP No.2 and also on behalf of the OPs No.3 to 4, the Complainant has purchased the said hand set at your end.   It is further submitted that, after purchase of the said hand set and after using the said hand set for a period of 2-3 months by the Complainant, the same was not in proper working condition and also there is no functioning of hand set properly, failure of network i.e., failure of connectivity, heating and hanging again & again, applications errors i.e., applications are not functioning, suddenly the handset will be switched off & switched on, mike  problem and it will takes long time to work on, software problems, over heating of the said hand set, no battery backup and other un explained problems in the said hand set is found. The touch screen of the said hand set is also not working properly. Then the Complainant has rushed to the OP No.1 immediately for getting repair of the same or replacing the same since the Complainant has purchased the same with the OP No.1, but the OP No.1 has directed the Complainant to approach the OP No.2 for which the Complainant has approached for the rectification of the above said problems found in the said hand set.  For which, the OP No.2 has received the said Hand Set for repair 3-4 times and the OP No.2 has changed the touch screen and board of the said hand set but of no use since the above said problems were still continued and found. The OP No.2 has updated the software 3 times to the said hand set but of no use.    The OP No.2 has tried several times to get rectify the same but found that there were manufacturing defects.  The OP No.3 and 4 are being the Authorized Signatory for attending the consumer complaints and also Manufacturers of the said hand set respectively.  On observations, the OP No.1 to 4 have failed to rectify the problems found in the hand set for which the Complainant has fed up with the attitudes of the OP No.1 to 4.   Then the Complainant has informed the same to the OP No.1 to 4 also but till this day, all OPs have not repaired the said handset properly which were in existing.  The OP No.1 to 4 have not given the necessary and proper service to the Complainant with respect to the said handset.  Hence there is a deficiency of service and also negligence by all the OPs.  Any how the alleged defects or problems in the said hand set are purely might have manufacturing defects and all the OPs are necessary parties to fulfill the needs of the Complainant i.e., towards their esteemed customer as per law though the said handset is not in working condition. Now, the Complainant is restrained from the usage of the said hand set, but the hand set is absolutely necessary and required to him. Now, the Complainant has suffered lot of mental agony, mental stress, inconvenience, lack of communication, loss of expenditure, day to day works are delayed due to non-repair of the above said mobile hand set, caused delay for repair of the said handset and not handed over the repaired handset or replacement of the handset for which the Complainant has also suffered huge financial loss caused by the OPs.  The repeated requests and demands made by the Complainant with the OPs for getting repair of the said handset or replacement of the said handset or return of the amount of the hand set had fallen on deaf ears. Therefore all the OPs have shown clear deficiency in services, defective services and negligence of services towards their customer and caused lot of annoyance with loss of communication to the Complainant. The Complainant has lost the hopes on the said Gionee hand set.   As such, the Complainant has issued the Notices to the OP No.1 to 4 through mail and also through RPAD calling upon them to refund the price of the hand set and compensation, but even getting the knowledge of the same by the OPs, they have neither replied to the said notices properly nor complied the terms of the notices till this day.  Out of all the OPs, the OP No.1 has replied to the said legal notice but not complied the terms of the legal notice.   The cause of action for filing the above said Complaint has arisen at Chitradurga Town when the OP No.1 has sold and supplied the defective mobile hand set to the Complainant in Chitradurga Town. Then OP No.2 is failed to rectify or failed to repair the said mobile hand set and orally informed the Complainant that there were a manufacturing defects. Then directed the Complainant to approach the OP No.3 and 4 for settlement of the issues. Then OPs have not acted upon the warrantee conditions of them though the  notices sent to them were served on them but they have not complied for the same, refused to compensate the Complainant by way of refund of price of the handset, compensation with interest with other subsequent acts. Hence, prayed for allow the complaint.

3.     Inspite of service of notice, OP No. 1 and 2 appeared through Sri. H.S. Satyanarayana Setty, Advocate and filed version.  In spite of service, OP No.3 and 4 have remained absent and hence they placed ex-parte.

According to the version filed by OP No.1 and 2, it is submitted that, the complainant has purchased the disputed Gionee Mobile Handset from OP No.1 vide Invoice No.SI/CDU2/212 on 02.09.2017.  But, the allegation that, he purchased the same on the assurance given by OP No.2 is denied as false as OP No.2 is an authorized person to give any kind of assurance to any purchaser of mobile handset.   OP No.2 has not given any assurance of any kind either to the complainant or to the OP No.1 at any point of time.  OP No.2 is the authorized service Centre of M/s Gionee India Pvt. Ltd., i.e., to undertake repair/rectify the defective handsets on behalf of company which are in under warranty period and rest of the allegations made in para 2 are not concerned to OP No.2.        Further it is submitted that, complainant along with OP No.1 approached OP No.2 alleging complaints with the handset i.e., network failure, heating, hanging, applications error, switch off and switch on, working of mic and battery back etc.  OP No.2 received the same in order to rectify the aforesaid problems found and put all his efforts to rectify the problems found in the handset and also conveyed the company about some manufacturing defects.  Thereafter, the company informed the complainant and OP No.1 that, it will issue the DOA to the said disputed handset through OP No.2 and informed the OP No.2 to issue the DOA to the complainant.  Thereafter, the OP No.2 informed the complainant and OP No.1 to bring the disputed mobile handset with its box with all accessories and original bill/invoice for issuance of the DOA.  Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP No.1 that, he is ready to get the DOA from OP No.2 subject to the condition that, OP No.1 should give mobile handset of his choice and he is ready to pay the difference amount to OP No.1 but, OP No.1 refused to the said request.  It is further submitted that, OP No.2 is ready to issue DOA as per the company instructions to the complainant.  But due to refusal of the request of complainant made to OP No.1 to give another model of new handset to the complainant by collecting difference amount by OP No.1, this dispute has been arise.  The OP No.2 is ready to issue DOA even now also and hence, there is no deficiency of service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.         

  4.   Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-10 were got marked.  On behalf of OP No.2 one Sri.H.S.Savan, the authorized signatory of Mobile Technologies has examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and no documents have been got marked.

5.     Arguments heard. 

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service by supplying the defective mobile to him and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

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

        Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.     It is not in dispute that, complainant has purchased one Gionee Mobile Handset bearing Model No.LITE Gold Gionee from OP No.1 on 02.09.2017 by paying Rs.14,600-64 under Tax Invoice dated 02.09.2017 which covers warranty of 1+1 year i.e., two years  as per Ex.A-2.   The contention taken by the complainant that, after 2-3 months from the date of purchase, the same was not in proper working condition and also there is no functioning of hand set properly, failure of network i.e., failure of connectivity, heating and hanging again & again, applications errors i.e., applications are not functioning, suddenly the handset will be switched off & switched on, mike  problem and it will takes long time to work on, software problems, over heating of the said hand set, no battery backup and other un explained problems in the said hand set is found. The touch screen of the said hand set is also not working properly.   The same was informed to the OPs but, the OPs have not come forward to rectify the above said defects found in the handset.  The OP No.2 has taken a contention at para 6 of its written statement that, OP No.2 is ready to issue DOA even now also, which clearly shows that, the mobile handset purchased by the complainant is a manufacturing defect.  

9.     Ex.A-1 clearly shows that, the complainant has purchased one mobile handset from the OP No.1 by paying a sum of Rs.14,601/- under Tax Invoice dated 02.09.2017.   But, after purchasing and using the same only for 2-3 months, the handset started giving problems which were unexplained.  The complainant approached all the OPs and requested to rectify the problems occurred in the mobile handset.  But, OP No.1 told the complainant to approach the OP No.2 for rectification of the problems found with the OP No.2.  OP No.2 has repaired the hand set but, the same problems found in the handset.  Then the complainant approached OP No.2 by that time, OP No.2 told that, there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile. 

10.   On hearing the contention of complainant and on perusal of the document including the affidavit, it clearly made out from the documents that, as per Ex.A-1, the complainant has purchased the above said mobile handset by paying an amount of Rs.14,601/- having a warranty of 1 + 1 years.  But, the same is having manufacturing defects since from the date of purchase.  After using the said mobile handset for 2-3 months, some un-explained defects found in the said handset.  The complainant approached the OPs several times to rectify the same but, they failed to rectify/cure the same.  Due to the defects found in the handset, the complainant has suffered mentally and financially for selling the defective mobile handset by the OPs, which caused mental agony and financial loss, which cannot be compensated by the OPs unless on payment of compensation.  The complainant has proved that, the OP No.1 has sold the defective mobile handset to the complainant manufactured by OP No.3 and 4.  On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum has come to the conclusion that, the complainant is entitled to receive the price of the mobile i.e., Rs.14,601/-, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/-towards cost is just and proper.   Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

 

          11.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby partly allowed.

          It is ordered that the OP No.1, 3 and 4 are hereby directed to refund an amount of Rs.14,601/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of purchase of the mobile till realization.

          It is further ordered that, the OP No.2 is hereby directed to assist the complainant to recover the same from OP No.1, 3 and 4.

          It is further ordered that, the OP No.1, 3 and 4 are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

          It is further ordered that, the OPs hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

                                                            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 30/06/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

              

                                     

          MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

 

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

 

01	Ex-A-1:-	Tax Invoice dated 02.09.2017
02	Ex.A-2:-	Warrantee Terms and conditions
03	Ex.A-3:-	Online/Manual Copy of the Acknowledgement with job sheet
04	Ex.A-4:-	Online complaint dated 21.12.2017
05	Ex.A-5 to 7:-	Legal Notices dated 26.12.2017 and 02.01.2018
06	Ex-A-8:-	Postal receipts
07	Ex.A-9 and 10:-	Postal Acknowledgements

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**