Date of Complaint : 20.11.2014
Date of Order :24.02.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT : THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER – I
DR.T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.No. 458 / 2014
THIS WEDNESDAY 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
Mr. Kulavanan,
S/o. Thangavelu,
No.5/264/ Vettiyakaadu Street,
Thagattur Village & Post,
Vedharanyam Taluk,
Nagapattinam District. .. Complainant.
- Vs-
1. The Sales Manager, Universel Cell, Universel Cell telecommunication India Limited, Ranganathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai -17. 2. The Showroom Manager, Universel Cell, No.81, South Street, Thiruvallur 610 001. .. Opposite parties. | | .. Opposite party. |
| | |
For the complainant : M/s. A.Venkatesh & another
For the opposite parties : Exparte
ORDER
THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA, :: MEMBER-I
1. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to return back the new cell phone and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as mental agony to the complainant.
2. Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the opposite parties did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version. Hence the 1st opposite party was set exparte on 15.6.2015 and 2nd opposite party was set exparte on 27.2.2015.
3. Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 filed by the complainant and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant counsel.
4. The complainant contented that on 14.12.2013 he purchased one mobile model No. LAVA IRIS 402 from the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.8,180/- with one year warranty and also taken theft insurance to the same. Within two weeks from the date of purchase there was touch screen problem and the handset became dead. It was happened so many times and when the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party he advised that the same will be automatically rectified. Due to the above said problem the complainant was unable to use the Cell phone. Therefore on 7.7.2014 he gave the Cell phone to the 2nd opposite party for repair for which they also issued service request form and assured that it will be returned within one week after rectifying the mistake.
5. The complainant further contended that when he approached the 2nd opposite party he again sought two more weeks since it has to be sent to Delhi. Since the mobile was not returned the complainant sent the legal notice on 30.7.2014 to the 1st opposite party but they failed to send any reply though they received the notice. Due to the unfair trade practice of both opposite parties the complainant incurred unnecessary expenses to and fro to his native place and Tiruvarur and also caused mental agony.
6. The complainant also contended that since he is running travel agency business in Vedharanyam due to the non-availability of cell phone he is losing his clients as well as business. Hence he filed the above complaint to direct the opposite parties to return a new cell phone and also Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for his business loss and mental agony.
7. The contention of the complainant is that he had purchased the complaint mentioned mobile for Rs.8,180/- on 14.12.2013 is evidenced through Ex.A1. The grievance of the complainant is that within a few weeks of purchase of the mobile phone the touch screen was not working and the mobile got dead and when he informed the 2nd opposite party they advised that it would get rectified automatically but still the mobile was not functioning and when he gave the mobile to the 2nd opposite party on 7.7.2014 even after sufficient time they failed to repair the mobile phone and retained by them. Further grievance of the complainant is that since he is running a Travel agency due to the non availability of the cell phone he lost his business and clients. Hence he incurred expenses to travel from his native place to Tiruvarur and has suffered much hardship. Further the complainant also sent legal notice to the 1st opposite party who is the dealer of the complaint mentioned mobile but they failed to send any reply, even after receipt of notice i.e. Ex.A3. As such the opposite party had committed deficiency of service and also caused mental agony to the complainant is acceptable.
8. The opposite parties has not appeared before this forum to give any contra evidence in order to defend their case.
9. The complainant though stated that his mobile got repaired within two weeks from the date of purchase, Ex.A2 reveals that he had given the mobile to the 2nd opposite party only after seven months. As such we presume that the mobile has been used by the complainant for certain period.
10. However, the 2nd opposite party being the branch of the 1st opposite party, having rectified the said mobile for repair should have repaired the mobile by itself or by sending the same to the 1st opposite party and returned to the complainant after rectification. Whereas even as on date the 2nd opposite party did not take any steps to return the mobile to the complainant duly repaired. As such during this period the complainant had suffered hardship due to non availability of mobile is acceptable. Hence we are of the considered view that the relief sought for by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to return new cell phone is not sustainable at this stage since it is an used one. Hence we decide that the cost of the used mobile as approximately Rs.4,000/-. As such opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to return the cost of the compliant mentioned used mobile Rs.4,000/- and also liable to pay compensation for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and also Rs.2,500/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. The compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant and as such the complainant is entitled for just and reasonable compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to return the cost of the complaint mentioned used mobile Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) as cost of litigation to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above amounts (Rs.4000/- & Rs.5,000/-) will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of realization.
Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 24th day of February 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s Side documents :
Ex.A1- 14.12.2013 - Copy of Tax invoice.
Ex.A2- 7.7.2014 - Copy of Service request form.
Ex.A3- 30.7.2014 - Copy of Legal notice
Ex.A4- - - - Copy of Acknowledgement.
Opposite party’s side documents: -
.. Nil .. (exparte)
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
