Date of filing: 24.10.2013
Date of disposal:11.06.2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC)
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A.,B.L., Lady Member
Wednesday, the 11th day of June, 2014
C.C.No.60/2014
Between:
S.V.Girivaraprasad,
S/o S.Sadasiva Raju,
D.No.7/69, Tank Road,
Penukonda,
Ananthapuramu District. … Complainant
Vs
1. Univercell Telecommunications Private Limited,
Corporate Office No.28, T.T.K.Road, Alwarpet,
Chennai.
2. HTC Authorized Service Centre,
Flat No.11-1, Pattalamma Temple Street,
Off:Eliphant Rock Road,
Near A.V.Nursing Home, Basavanagudi,
Bangalore – 560 004.
3. Univercell Brand HTC Mobiles, 80 feet Road,
5th Block, Koramangala (Sapna Book Mall),
Bangalore – 560 095,
4. Univercell Telecommunications Private Limited,
Sale centre, Branch Office, Subash Road,
Ananthapuramu. … Opposite parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri V.Krishna Sarma Advocate for the complainant and the opposite parties 1 to 4 called absent and set exparte and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of complainant side, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Smt. M.Sreelatha, Lady Member:- This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.16,941/- towards cost of the cell phone, Rs.4,066/- towards interest at 24% P.A. from 20.10.2012 to 20.10.2013, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards travelling expenses and grant such other relief or reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: The complainant purchased HTC Desire V Model cell with IMEI No.352795053138516 I.D.No.352795053138524, device serial No.HT283PG01732 on 20.10.2012 for a sum of Rs.16,941/- under the invoice No.UKA2034522 from the 3rd opposite party and as per the conditions the warrantee period is one year from the date of purchase and it is also agreed at the time of purchase that the permanent residential address will be considered as the jurisdiction for the court to entertain any complaint etc., against the company, if any problems arose. It is submitted that the after purchasing the above said cell phone as there is vibration problem whenever received calls, the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party fro the first time in the month of January,2013. Subsequently one month thereafter with the opposite parties 2 & 3 and informed about the above said problem. After receiving the cell phone from the complainant for rectifying the defects and returned the same 10 days after that and informed that there is software problem and they changed the software and informed that the said defect was rectified. Inspite of the same the said defect was not rectified. On the other hand some other defects also occurred i.e., Touch slow, slow process, tike time for memory open, red line in the entire screen and back button not in working along with the vibration problem. Again the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party on 06.04.2013 and informed the same. The 3rd opposite party received the cell phone keeping the same idle for 10 days then only send the cell phone to 2nd opposite party. The complainant further informed that he approached again that the same problems as the defects were not rectified. The complainant also informed the opposite parties 2 & 3 through phone about the defects but there was not reply from the opposite parties 2 & 3. Then the complainant gave complaint through Emails dt.19.05.2013 and 09.06.2013 to the opposite parties 2 & 3. The 2nd opposite party gave reply to the Email complaint they rectify the problem. Inspite of brining the above said defects to the notice of the opposite parties 1 to 3 the said defects are not rectified for the reasons best known to them and there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are not cared to rectify the defects though the complainant made several requested it means to manufacturing defect. Hence the complaint filed this present complaint claiming compensation of Rs.41,007/- under various heads as he suffered lot of mental agony and incurred travelling expenses from his native place to Bangalore it means to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. Opposite parties 1 to 4 called absent and set exparte.
4. Basing on the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-
i) Where there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties
1 to 4?
ii) To what relief?
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the evidence on affidavit of the complainant has been filed and marked Exs.A1 to A8.
6. Heard complainant side.
7. POINT NO.1:- Counsel for complainant argued that the complainant purchased a HTC Desire V Model cell from the 3rd opposite party on 20.10.2012 by paying a sum of Rs.16,941/- as per the conditions the warranty period is one year from the date of purchase. The counsel for the complainant argued that after purchasing the cell the complainant observed there is a vibration problem whenever he used to receive calls. Then the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party in the month of January 2013. Though the 3rd opposite party received his cell for rectification by keeping 10 days they have not rectified the same and given to the complainant saying that it was rectified. It is surprised to the complainant that though the previous defect was not rectified other defects occurred in the mobile i.e., touch slow, slow process, back button not working, again the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party on 06.04.2013 and informed the above defects, the 3rd opposite party received the cell and again he kept the cell idle for 10 days then only sent to the 2nd opposite party service centre. The counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite parties 2 & 3 though they have received the cell for rectification they have not rectified the mobile though the cell is within warranty period. The complainant also made representations through Email and the same was filed before this Forum. Though the opposite parties gave reply to the Email to the complainant they have not properly responded nor rectification of defects in cell. These are all amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The counsel for the complainant argued due to negligence attitude of the opposite parties the complainant suffered lot of mental agony and he also incurred an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards travelling expenses to travel from his home town to 3rd opposite party office. It is a case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled an amount claimed in the compliant.
8. As per Ex.A1 it is fact that the complainant purchased DTC Model from the 3rd opposite party for a sum of Rs.16,941/- on 20.10.2012 wherein it was mentioned that the warranty period defined by the respective manufactures against defect in material and workmanship. The counsel stated that at the time of purchase of the cell from the 3rd opposite party they informed that this mobile is warranty for a period of one year and there was no separate warranty card is necessary for the same by believing the words the complainant has not forced to get the warranty card. The complainant stated that after some time the cell started giving problem i.e., vibration at the time of receiving calls immediately he informed to the 3rd opposite party that the 3rd opposite party taken the cell they have not given any receipt to show that the complainant given to his mobile for rectification. In the pleadings it was mentioned that though the previous defect not rectified and other defects were occurred after giving cell for repair. The complainant gave his mobile to 3rd opposite party again on 06.04.2013 under Ex.A2 with a problem that unnecessary vibration, touch screen problem etc., Under Ex.A2 it was mentioned that the mobile it was given for repair within warranty period. We believe under Ex.A2 it was given by the 3rd opposite party from whom the complainant purchased the above said cell. The complainant stated that even after 06.04.2013 the problem in the cell is not rectified. Then the complainant sent Email to 3rd opposite party under Ex.A3 on 19.05.2013 informing about the same defects for the same the opposite party given reply on the same day under Ex.A4. Under Ex.A4 simply mentioned that we will contacting you soon but they have not clarified the problem stated by the complainant through Email. When the opposite parties not properly responded to the Emails then the complainant got issued legal notice under Ex.A5 explaining the facts that the cell is not properly working and he made representation to the opposite parties even then they have not be properly responded. For legal notice also the opposite party has not given any reply though the same was served. When we go through all the documents and correspondence made by the complainant we fell that the opposite parties 1 to 4 is not a small company. Though the 3rd opposite party who sold the cell to the complainant they have not properly rectified the defects complained by the complainant. The 3rd opposite party ought to have send the cell for rectification to the 2nd opposite party who is the service centre that there was no recital under Ex.A2 that whether defects were rectified when the defects were occurred within warranty period. The cell should have send to the service centre of the particular brand, but the 3rd opposite party not done it so. It is the duty of dealers the cell should have sent to the manufacturers when repeated complaints was given by the complainant but neither the 2nd opposite party nor the 3rd opposite party try to send the same to the manufacturers. It is the case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant made request from January 2013 till his legal notice i.e., 16.07.2013 more than a period of 8 months the opposite parties harassed the complainant by not rectifying the defects in the cell the complainant suffered lot of mental agony.
9. We are of the opinion that it is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant proved his case beyond reasonable doubt.
10. In the result, the compliant is partly allowed by directing the opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.16,941/- towards costs of the cell phone, Rs.5000/- toward mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards costs of the complainant within one month from the date of this order otherwise the complainant is entitled interest @ 9% P.A. on Rs.16,941/- from the date of purchase i.e., 20.10.2012 till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 11th day of June, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT(FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
-NIL - - NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1. Photo copy tax invoice dt.20.10.2012 Rs.16,941/- issued by the 4th opposite
party in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of service request form issued by the 4th opposite party.
Ex.A3 Email complaint dt.19.05.2013 lodged by the complainant.
Ex.A4 Reply Email dt.19.05.2013 sent by the HTC to the complainant.
Ex.A5 Office copy of the legal notice dt.16.07.2013 got issued by the complainant
to the opposite parties.
Ex.A6 Postal acknowledgement signed by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A7 Postal acknowledgement signed by the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A8 Postal acknowledgement signed by the 2nd opposite party.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES 1to 4
NIL
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT(FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
