Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/73/2016

S.Nageswarao, S/o S.Subbarayudu, A.C.Mechanic - Complainant(s)

Versus

Univercell Telecommunications India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

B.Sekhar Babu

28 Oct 2016

ORDER

Filing Date: 30.07.2016

Order Date:28.10.2016

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

FRIDAY THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.73/2016

 

 

Between

 

 

S.Nageswarao,

S/o. S.Subbarayudu,

A.C.Mechanic,

D.No.13-3-344/53, Head Post Office Street,

Tirupati.                                                                                             … Complainant

 

 

 

And

 

 

1.         Univercell Telecomunications India Pvt. Ltd.,

By its Branch Manager,

D.No.13-4-392, B1/1, Manoj Complex,

Tilak Road,

Tirupati.

 

2. Srivalli Communications,

Authorised Service Centre for Lenovo Mobile Phones,

Rep. by its Servicemen,

D.No.171, G.Car Street,

Opp. Govindarajuluswamy Temple,

Tirupati.                                                                                 …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 20.10.16 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.B.Sekhar Babu, counsel for complainant, and opposite parties remained exparte, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section – 12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant against the opposite parties for the following reliefs  1) to direct the opposite parties    1 and 2 to replace the Lenovo mobile phone in the place of defective one or to return the cost of the phone i.e. Rs.10,000/- paid by the complainant, for purchase of the said mobile together with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization,     2) to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.25,000/- towards deficiency in service and for causing mental agony to the complainant, and 3) to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay the costs of the complaint and pass other necessary order or orders as the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

            2.  The averments of the complaint in brief are:-  that the complainant purchased Lenovo mobile phone bearing No.6010 with IMEI No.867346028685377 along with Plantronics Bluetooth headset for a sum of Rs.10,701/- on 23.11.2015 from opposite party No.1 under invoice No.SI/AP/TPT/1004 with a warranty of one year.

            3.  In the 2^nd week of December 2015, the mobile gave trouble “not switched on”, complainant approached opposite party No.1, who advised the complainant to approach opposite party No.2, Lenovo Company authorized service centre. Accordingly, the complainant approached opposite party No.2 and the phone was repaired by opposite party No.2. In the month of February 2016 same problem was raised, and the complainant made a complaint to opposite party No.2, within 2 days mobile was repaired by opposite party No.2. In the month of April 2016, again the same problem raised and the opposite party No.2 rectified the same and promised that if the said problem is repeated, phone will be replaced, as it is a manufacturing defect, as per warranty. On 14.06.2016, the mobile gave same problem, complainant approached opposite party No.2 and handed-over the mobile with job sheet No.6368 requesting the opposite party No.2 to replace the mobile with a new one or repair the same permanently, for which opposite party No.2 requested the complainant to wait for some days to change the phone with a new one, but they failed to either replace the phone or to return the same after repair.

            4.  Since 14.06.2016, the complainant lost his business for want of mobile phone. Within 6 months from the date of purchase, the mobile phone started troubling and underwent repairs for several times with opposite party No.2, even then the problem could not be rectified. On 30.06.2016, complainant got issued legal notice calling upon the opposite parties 1 and 2 to replace the mobile or to refund the cost of the mobile. Having received the notice, they failed to either replace the mobile with new one or return the mobile after repairs or even to pay back the cost of the mobile phone in question. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Due to defect in the goods and deficiency in service on the part of the part of the opposite parties, complainant filed the complaint and prays the Forum to allow the complaint and award the reliefs sought for.

            5.  Opposite parties 1 and 2, remained exparte.

            6.  Complainant filed chief affidavit as P.W.1 and also filed his written arguments and got marked Exs.A1 to A5.

            7.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (j).  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties          

                  1 and 2 ?              

            (ii).  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

            (iii).  To what relief?

            8. Point No.(i):- on perusal of the complaint, evidence affidavit of P.W.1, written arguments on behalf of complainant and Exs.A1 to A5, it is found that the complainant purchased a Lenovo mobile phone bearing No.6010 with IMEI No.867346028685377 for Rs.10,701/- along with Bluetooth headset on 23.11.2015, and the opposite parties also given warranty for one year under Ex.A1 invoice. Thereafter, in the month of December 2015 mobile phone cannot be operated, as it was not “switched on”, opposite party No.2 rectified the same. Again in the month of February 2016 and in the month of April 2016 same problem was developed and it was rectified by the opposite party No.2. Subsequently, on 14.06.2016 mobile phone again gave same problem, but it could not be rectified by the opposite parties, though it was handed-over to opposite party No.2 along with job sheet No.6368. The opposite parties though received the notice from the complainant under Ex.A3, they neither rectified the mistake and return the mobile to complainant nor replaced with a new one or even to return the cost of the mobile. Ever since 14.06.2016 the mobile phone in question was with opposite party No.2, as such the complainant sustained loss in his business for want of mobile phone, according to the complainant.

            9.  Non-rectification of the defective mobile phone or non-replacing the mobile phone with new one, as per the terms of the warranty, as there was manufacturing defect in the phone in question, according to opposite party No.2, and non-refund of the cost of the mobile phone and simply keeping the mobile phone with opposite party No.2 since 14.06.2016 certainly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus, under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that complainant has established the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, for which the opposite parties are liable. Accordingly this point is answered.

            10. Point No.(ii):-  from the facts in the complaint, evidence affidavit of P.W.1, written arguments filed on behalf of complainant and Exs.A1 to A5, it is found that complainant has established that mobile phone is suffering from manufacturing defect and the opposite parties could not rectify the same since December 2015 i.e. within one month from the date of purchase. The opposite parties have detained the phone with them since 14.06.2016 without getting the mobile phone in question repaired or replacing the same with new one or even to return the cost of the mobile phone to the complainant inspite of the legal notice under Ex.A3. The opposite parties 1 and 2 remained exparte, even without making their appearance and filing their written versions and evidence affidavits etc. which clearly shows that the opposite parties have no case to contest and the evidence affidavit of P.W.1 remained un-challenged. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for replacing of the Lenovo mobile phone bearing No.6010 with a new one and opposite parties 1 and 2 also liable to pay the compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            11.  Point No.(iii):-  in view of our findings on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant has established that there is manufacturing defect in the Lenovo mobile phone bearing No.6010 with IMEI No.867346028685377 purchased by the complainant under Ex.A1, and the opposite parties failed to either rectify the same or replace the same or refund the cost of the mobile phone as per the terms of the warranty card under Ex.A5. The complainant also established that he is entitled for the reliefs sought for, as such the complaint is to be allowed.

            In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 2, to replace the Lenovo mobile phone in question with a new one or to refund the cost of the said mobile phone a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 23.11.2015 till realization. The opposite parties 1 and 2 also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and for causing mental agony to the complainant, and the opposite parties also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint  The opposite parties 1 and 2 further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of order, till realization.                

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 28^th day of October, 2016.

 

      Sd/-                                                                                                                       Sd/-                       

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: S. Nageswarao (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

-NIL-

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Bill or Tax Invoice (Original) of purchase of Lenovo Mobile Phone issue by the 1st Opposite Party. Dt: 23.11.2015.
	Service Job in original and Service Job Sheet No.6368 issued by the 2nd Opposite Party. Dt: 14.06.2016.
	Office copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties with postal receipts. Dt: 30.06.2016.
	Postal acknowledgement cards from the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties.
	Warranty Card.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

NIL

 

                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                                                      President

           

             // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

           Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

                 

          

Copies to:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.