This complaint came before us for final hearing, in presence of Sri Annarapu Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the Complainant; Notices for opposite parties No.1 to 3 served and called absent; Upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)
This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased Celkon mobile phone, model No.A85 vide its IMEI No.911236250198601 on 13-02-2013 for Rs.3,800/- from the opposite party No.1, it was in good condition for about two months, thereafter started giving problems in the touch screen and had battery backup problem. Upon which, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.1 advised to approach the opposite party No.2 for services. Upon the advises of opposite party No.1, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on 05-03-2013 for rectification of problems, the technician of opposite party No.2 stated that there is some problem in the touch screen and also having other problems and after rectifying the same, returned the cell phone to the complainant. Again the same problem was arose within few days, due to which, the complainant surrendered the cell phone to the opposite party No.2 on 24-05-2013, but they failed to rectify the problem and did not give proper replies despite making many rounds. The complainant further alleges that the attitude of opposite party No.2 is amounts to deficiency of service, which causes, lot of mental agony and as such issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 10-07-2013, in spite of receiving, the opposite parties did not replace the defective mobile with new one and as such filed the present complaint by praying to direct the opposite parties to replace the defective Celkon mobile vide model No. A 85 with new one or to return its bill amount of Rs.3,800/- and to award damages of Rs.25000/- and costs.
2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed the following documents, those were marked as Exhibits A1 to A10.
Ex.A1:- Bill dt.13-02-2013 for Rs.3,800/-.
Ex.A2:- Warrantee Card.
Ex.A3:- Job Card dt.34-05-2013, issued by opposite party No.2.
Ex.A4:- Office copy of legal notice, dt.10-07-2013 along with postal receipts and acknowledgements.
3. After registering the complaint, notices were served to the opposite parties, in spite of giving sufficient time they failed to appear till the matter was posted for orders.
4. In view of the above circumstances, now the point that arose for consideration is,
Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief
as prayed for?
Point:-
According to the contents of complaint and the material on record, it is a fact that the complainant had purchased Celkon mobile phone vide its IME No.9113262501988601 on 13-02-2013 for Rs.3,800/- from the opposite party No.1, which was evidenced under Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is the warranty card, according to which, the opposite parties provided one year warranty on the cell phone and six months warranty for battery. Against which, within three months the complainant’s cell phone started giving troubles. Upon which, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for repairs and on advises of opposite party No.1 surrendered the mobile phone to the opposite party No.2 on 24-05-2013. After examining the mobile phone, the opposite party No.2 issued job card, which is marked under Ex.A3, wherein clearly mentioned the problem as touch/hanging, battery backup problem, despite keeping the mobile for about 10days, it failed to rectify the defects, due to which, the complainant suffered a lot and issued legal notice on 10-07-2013. In spite of receiving legal notice, the opposite parties neither gave any reply nor rectified the defects, which causes lot of inconvenience to the complainant and as such constrained to file the present complaint, even after service of notices from this Forum, the opposite parties did not turn up for filing their version, which definitely amounts to deficiency of service towards its consumers. Moreover, according to the job card, within four months, the cell phone has battery backup problem, which was rectified only by replacing such part with new one and with regard to the other problems are concerned, according to the complaint, within one month, i.e. on 05-03-2013, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 for rectification of said problems and again approached on the same problems and surrendered the mobile phone to the opposite party No.2. Even though, there is no rectification and did not respond to give reply even after receipt of legal notice. In view of the above circumstances, the attitude of opposite parties towards its consumers is definitely amounts to deficiency of service, which is not tenable and as such the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.
5. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to replace the defective Celkon Mobile Phone model No.A85 vide its IMEI No. 9113262501988601 with new one or to return the bill amount of Rs.3,800/- to the complainant and cost of Rs.500/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 28th day of January 2014.
FAC President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant and opposite parties: -None-
Exhibits marked for complainant:-
Ex.A1:- Bill dt.13-02-2013 for Rs.3,800/-.
Ex.A2:- Warrantee Card.
Ex.A3:- Job Card dt.34-05-2013, issued by opposite party No.2.
Ex.A4:- Office copy of legal notice, dt.10-07-2013 along with post receipts and acknowledgements.
Exhibits marked for opposite parties:- Nil
FAC President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam.
