Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/87/2013

N.M.Selvaraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Univercell Telecommunications (india) Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

08 Apr 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 28.02.2013

                                                                          Date of Order : 08.04.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP. : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.87/2013

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 08^TH DAY OF APRIL 2019

                                 

S. Sumathi,

Rep. by its Power Agent

Mr. N.M. Selvaraj,

No.G-8 P & T Quarters,

VM Street,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                    

 

      ..Versus..

 

The Manager – Legal,

M/s. Univercell Telecommunications (India) Private Limited,

No.278, Sathya Buildings,

Peters Road,

Gopalapuram,

Chennai – 600 086.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

 

For the complainant                   : Mr. N.M. Selvaraj, Power Agent

Counsel for the opposite party  : M/s. R. Gobi & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 pray to replace the faulty mobile instrument with a new one of the same make and model and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and defamation suffered by the complainant due to the unlawful acts of the opposite party with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he purchased a Nokia 202 mobile instrument from M/s. Univercell shop at Salem on 26.08.2012 for a sum of Rs.4,380/-.  The complainant submits that from the day of use itself the mobile set was not functioning properly.  The complainant has taken the said phone to the opposite party’s service centre on 03.12.2012 within the guarantee period.  The technical person of the Gopalapuram Service Centre told that the defect will be rectified within a day or two.  After three days, he informed that the defects could not be rectified and refused to reveal the actual fault.  Once again, the complainant contacted Nokia Service Centre at TTK Road, Alwarpet and the person who attended the phone asked the complainant to get back the mobile set from Gopalapuram Service Centre and give it to TTK Road Service Centre for repair.  On 08.12.2012, the complainant received the instrument Gopalapuram Service Centre and gave it to the TTK Road Service Centre Service Request Form but has not serviced the handset and returned the same.  The complainant submits that the opposite party eventhough there is warranty period, the opposite party has not duly serviced the mobile handset. Hence, the complainant issued notice dated:29.12.2012 for due replacement of mobile handset.   The opposite party sent a reply dated:05.01.2013 but not come forward to settle the demands of the complainant. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite party states that he is not the manufacturer of the mobile phone but he is an authorized retailer to sell the various manufactures cell phone, data cards and other accessories.   The opposite party submits that the complainant has given the mobile for service on 03.12.2012 at Nokia Service Centre, Gopalapuram.  Immediately after receipt of the handset for service, this opposite party has duly attended even sent to TTK Road Service Centre wherein, the technician found that one of the screws is found missing.   The opposite party states that he has nothing to do with the replacement.  The contract is also only service provider.  The complainant’s handset has the problem only due to the loss of screw.  This opposite party also has no spare parts.   Hence, this opposite party was not able to service the handset.  Further the opposite party states that as per the norms of the mobile manufacturer, the mobile phone will be replaced by the mobile manufacturer only if the product is scrutinized by the authorized service engineer employed at the authorized service centre of the manufacturer and certified by the said service engineer that there is a manufacturing defect.  Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the opposite party and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and document Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 are marked on the side of the opposite party. 

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the mobile phone as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he purchased a Nokia 202 mobile instrument from M/s. Univercell shop at Salem on 26.08.2012 for a sum of Rs.4,380/-.  Ex.A4 is the tax invoice issued by the opposite party.  Further the contention of complainant is that from the day of use itself the mobile set was not functioning properly.   The complainant has taken the said phone to the opposite party’s service centre on 03.12.2012 within the guarantee period.  The technical person of the Gopalapuram Service Centre told that the defect will be rectified within a day or two.  After three days, he informed that the defects could not be rectified and refused to reveal the actual fault.  Once again, the complainant contacted Nokia Service Centre at TTK Road, Alwarpet the person who attended the phone asked the complainant to get back the mobile set from Gopalapuram Service Centre and give it to TTK Road Service Centre for repair. On 08.12.2012, the complainant received the instrument Gopalapuram Service Centre and gave it to the TTK Road Service Centre as per Ex.A5, Service Request Form but has not serviced the handset and returned the same.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party eventhough there is warranty, the opposite party has not duly serviced the mobile handset. Hence, the complainant issued notice dated:29.12.2012 as per Ex.A1 for due replacement of mobile handset.    The opposite party sent a reply dated:05.01.2013 as per Ex.A3 but not settled the demands of the complainant. The complainant is claiming replacement of the said mobile with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost.

6.     The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has not preferred to implead the manufacturer as a party in this case eventhough the relief is sought for replacement.  Hence, the complaint is barred for non-joinder of necessary party.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that he is the only service provider and not manufacturing the handset.  Immediately after receipt of the handset for service, this opposite party duly attended even sent to TTK Road Service Centre wherein, the technician found that one of the screws is found missing.  As per the warranty, eventhough the total warranty period is of 12 months, the consumable parts and accessories including batteries, chargers, desk stands, headsets, cables and covers have only 6 months warranty.  Likewise, 90 days warranty for any software provided CD-rom, memory card etc.  The warranty period will not extend or renewed or otherwise effected.  This opposite party has nothing to do with the replacement.  The contract is also only service provider.  The complainant’s handset has the problem only due to the loss of screw.  This opposite party also has no spare parts.   Hence, this opposite party was not able to service the handset.  There is no negligence on the part of the opposite party.  Non-impleadment of the manufacturer resulting that the complaint is itself is barred for non-joinder of necessary party.  The complainant also has not taken any steps to prove the alleged manufacturing defect by way of expert opinion.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 08^th day of April 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	29.12.2012	Copy of notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party along with postal receipt
Ex.A2		Copy of postal acknowledgement for M/s. Univercell, Salem and TTK Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018
Ex.A3	05.01.2013	Copy of reply from the Manager-Legal, M/s. Univercell Telecommunications (India) Private Limited, No.278, Sathya Buildings, Peters Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai – 600 086 with a report of the Service Engineer
Ex.A4	26.08.2012	Copy of tax invoice of M/s. Univercell, Salem No.4310607
Ex.A5	08.12.2012	Copy of service request form of M/s. Univercell No.15743

 

OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B1	11.12.2013	Copy of Service Job Sheet
Ex.B2	05.01.2013	Copy of reply notice
Ex.B3		Copy of Manufacturer’s Limited Warranty

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT