Andhra Pradesh

East Godwari-II at Rajahmundry

CC/15/2016

K.V.S.Markandeyulu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Yedukondala Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

A. Venkateswara Rao

19 Jul 2016

ORDER

                                                                                               Date of filing:   17.02.2016

                                                                                                Date of Order: 19.07.2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT AT RAJAHMUNDRY

 

                          PRESENT:   Smt H.V. Ramana, B.Com., L.L.M.,   PRESIDENT(FAC)

                      Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, M.Com., B.L., MEMBER          

    

                 Tuesday, the 19^th day of July, 2016

 

 

C.C.No.15 /2016

Between:-

 

K.V.S. Markandeyulu, S/o.K.P. Somayajulu,

Aged 53 years, Principal, S.T.A. Degree College,

Korukonda, E.G. Dt.                                                                     …        Complainant

 

                                    And

 

1)  Yedukondala Enterprises, D.No.7-30-29/3,

      Main Road, Rajahmundry-533 101.

 

2)  Masters, D.No.29-33-58, Opp: Krishna Dental Cure,

      Devichowk, Near Alluri Sitarama Raju Junction,

      Rajahmundry.

 

3)  Panasonic Customer Care Service, D-172,

      Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi – 110020.             …        Opposite parties

 

 

            This case coming on 11.07.2016 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri Appana Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the complainant and Sri K. Malleswara Rao, Advocate for the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties having been set ex-parte, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum has pronounced the following:  

 

O R D E R

[Per Smt.H.V. Ramana, Member & President (FAC)] 

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the opposite party to refund the invoice amount of cell phone of Rs.2,650/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of purchase till payment; pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages for mental agony and pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

2.         The case of the complainant is that he purchased Panasonic Sathi mobile with IMEI/ESN No.A1000091174050 354968061141503 on 27.3.2015 for Rs.2,650/- under bill No.84. Later he found some defects in the phone. The complainant submits that upon making complaint to the opposite parties, the 1^st opposite party suggested the 2^nd opposite party at Rajahmundry to repair the same and accordingly on 22.7.2015, the complainant handed over the said defective mobile phone with the 2^nd opposite party and later not solved the defect till date. The complainant several times approached the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, but the same is not fructified because of the adamant attitude of the both of them and the result is scant. Even then the problem mentioned above is not rectified and it shows the inherent manufacturing defect in the phone. Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice on 28.12.2015 to the opposite parties and the 1^st opposite party issued reply on 7.1.2016 with untrue and untenable allegations. Hence, the complaint.

3.         The 1^st opposite party filed its written version and denied all the allegations made by the complainant and the complaint is not maintainable either under law or on facts. It is submitted that this opposite party is retailer, and he used selling the cell phones all type of brands. He never gives any publicity through media or any manner. The cell phone companies and who make their products used give publicity through media, or any type of channel. This opposite party hereby submits that he is retailer; the warranty conditions are applicable to the product which is purchased by the complainant. If any defect is arising during the period of warranty, the company is responsible rectifying the same. This opposite party never suggested or convenience, the complainant to purchase the same. This opposite party is retailer; as a retailer, he is not liable to make fulfill the demands made by the complainant. The complainant filed this complaint only wrongful gain from this opposite party. In fact after receiving the notice from the complainant, this opposite party gave reply with correct facts. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.         The 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties remained ex-parte despite receipt of notices from this Forum.

5.         The proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exs.A1 to A6 have been marked for the complainant. The proof affidavit filed by the 1^st opposite party and there is no documentary evidence is adduced by the opposite party.

6.         Heard the complainant and the 1^st opposite party.

7.         Points raised for consideration are:

 

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

            2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for?

            3. To what relief?

 

8.  POINT Nos.1 & 2:  The admitted facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased Panasonic Sathi Cell phone from the 1^st opposite party for Rs.2,650/- and invoice is marked under Ex.A1. The opposite party also issued a warranty card and it is having one year warranty as per the warranty card vide Ex.A2. The complainant submitted that the cell phone was not functioning properly one month after purchase. He also submitted that the cell phone was not ringing when there is an incoming call and also going to head set mode, and it is also malfunctioning and charge always dropped and getting the switched off automatically. As per these defects, the complainant contended that the phone is having inherent manufacturing defects and he approached the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party directed him to approach the 2^nd opposite party for repair. The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party on 22.7.2015 and handed over the cell phone to him and they gave a job sheet vide Ex.A3. When the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party, he informed that the cell phone is not repairable as it is having manufacturing defect and asked the complainant to get the motherboard had to be changed. The complainant also filed the service job sheet vide Ex.A4.  The complainant contended that he approached several times to the opposite parties to replace the defective phone with new one, but they failed to do so. Later the complainant got issued a legal notice vide Ex.A5 to the opposite parties 1 and 2 and the same was received by them and acknowledged the same. They also gave a reply notice by denying the allegations made by the complainant vide Ex.A6.

            The 1^st opposite party submitted that he is only a retailer and the warranty conditions may applicable to the product which is purchased by the complainant.  If any, defects arising during the warranty, the company is responsible to rectify the defects. This opposite party never suggested or convinced the complainant to purchase the present cell phone in dispute. He also submitted that this opposite party is only a retailer and he is not liable to make fulfill the demands made by the complainant and the allegations made by the complainant has to show the strict proof of the same and there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party.

            After perusing the material on record, the opposite parties 2 & 3 are called absent and set ex-parte. The 2^nd opposite party is a service center and the 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer of the cell phone. It is evident that the complainant purchased the cell phone from the 1^st opposite party vide Ex.A1 and the same was not functioning properly and submitted the same to the 2^nd opposite party for repair as per the guidance of the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party received the cell phone and acknowledged vide Ex.A3. He also mentioned CDMA not functioning and informed vide Ex.A4, the motherboard has to be replaced and the said cell phone is within the warranty period as per Ex.A2. When the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party, they denied to replace the cell phone and informed him that they are only the retailers and they are not manufacturers of the product.

As per the record, it is observed that the 1^st opposite party is the dealer of the 3^rd opposite party, which means the 1^st opposite party is getting the cells from the 3^rd opposite party to do retail business. The cell phone is purchased by the complainant only from the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party is answerable for the defective cell phone as he is the dealer of the 3^rd opposite party. When the service center informed that there is a manufacturing defect in the phone and motherboard has to be replaced within the purchase of short period. The 1^st opposite party is having a responsibility to inform the same to the manufacturer about the defective cell phone that too the said phone is within the warranty period, but he denied the fact and failed to replace the disputed cell phone of the complainant. The 1^st opposite party is the dealer of the 3^rd opposite party which means there is principal and agent relationship between them. Therefore, the amount was received by the 1^st opposite party is liable to inform the same to the 3^rd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party has to replace or refund the value of the cell phone to the complainant. Here, the manufacturer and the dealer both are jointly and severally liable for selling of the defective cell phone to the complainant and not responding properly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  

Here, the 2^nd opposite party is only a service center and they received the cell phone and informed the complainant that the defects of the cell phone and what are the parts have to be replaced in the said cell phone. He is only a service provider; therefore, the claim against this opposite party is dismissed.     

With the discussion held supra, the opposite parties 1 & 3 are liable to replace the cell phone to the complainant and pay damages of Rs.2,000/- for causing inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant in not replacing the cell phone and made him to approach this Forum.         

 

 

9.   POINT No.3:  In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties 1 & 3 to replace the new cell phone by taking the defective phone or in alternative to refund the value of the phone as per invoice i.e. Rs.2,650/- and to pay Rs.2,000/- as damages for mental agony to the complainant. We further direct the opposite parties 1 & 3 to pay Rs.1,000/- towards the costs of the complaint to the complainant.  Time for compliance is two months from the date of this order.   

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, on this the 19^th day of July, 2016.

    

                 Sd/-                                                                                              Sd/-

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)

         

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT: None.                                         FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES: None.

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

 

Ex.A1    Bill from the 1^st opposite party under the name and style of tax invoice bearing

              No.84 dt.27.3.2015 for Rs.2,650/-.

Ex.A2    Customers details cum warranty card.

Ex.A3    Job sheet dt.22.7.2015 given by the 2^nd opposite party bearing S.No.623.

Ex.A4    Service job sheet.

Ex.A5    Notice dt.28.12.2015 with served ack. due and postal receipts.

Ex.A6    Reply dt.7.1.2016 from the 1^st opposite party with false allegations.

 

 

 

 

FOR 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY:-          - Nil -

 

 

                  Sd/-                                                                                             Sd/-

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)