Rachanna B. Kurkoti,

Age: 54 years, Occ: Legal Practitioner,

R/o. House No.11-1743, Saroja Nivas,

Vidya Nagar,

GULBARGA.

(By C.M. Patil Advocate)

// Versus //

OPPONENTS: - 1) M/s. NTEL MOBILES,

Usha Lexus, Cellular Phones (Authorized Dealer)

Jawali Complex, Super Market,

GULBARGA.

2) USHA LEXUS ELECTRONICS,

897, Udyog Vihar Phase-I,

GURGAON-122016,

HARYANA, INDIA.

(Manufacturer of Usha Lexus Cellular Phones)

: : O R D E R : :

1. This complaint is filed by one Rachanna B. Kurkoti, R/o. Vidya Nagar, Gulbarga against the OP-1 & 2, U/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, praying that, direction may be given to OPs to pay compensation of Rs.31,300/- in the interest of justice.

2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are as under;

Complainant is an Advocate practicing at Gulbarga. On 30-5-2008 he approached OP-1 shop for purchase of cellular phone, wherein he asked for a good cellular phone set. At that time, OP-1 offered cellular phone set manufactured by OP-2 having model No. Usha Lexus 828B, Colour-Black, IMEL No.353357017255123, for price of Rs.4,300/-. OP-1 has appreciated about quality and durability of F.M. Radio, Video Audio and battery set. Therefore Complainant purchased the said phone set on belief and trust of OP-1 by paying Rs.4,300/- for that, OP-1 issued invoice No.2614. OP-1 also given warranty card and hand bill covering cellular phone, wherein warranty for cellular phone is mentioned as one year for battery 6 months and for charger 6 months. After couple of months said cell phone started to give troubles like, self disconnecting within one and half minute, non-stopping even after ending call and silver colour of cell phone was also mutilate.

Hence he approached OP-1 number of times with all the above said complaints, but OP-1 postponed it one or other pretext. Lastly on 16-1-2009, complainant approached with written complaint with expectation of positive response from OP-1, but OP-1 directed him, to approach new service centre by name Ace Communications, near Aditya Hotel Gulbarga, stating that he is an authorized service centre for the said product. Accordingly Complainant approached said service centre with written complaint. Thereafter said service centre informed to come after 15 days. Therefore, Complainant approached said service centre on 03-02-2009, but he returned phone set with endorsement that, complaint will not comes under warranty. Inspite of warranty period of 12 months cellular phones, it is also mentioned in warranty card and actual period is till 16-1-2009, which comes to only 7 ½ months, hence it is within warranty period. Under these circumstances it is prayed that, complaint may be allowed and compensation may be awarded as prayed in the complaint.

3. After registering the case, notices were issued to OPs. After serving the notice, O.Ps., did not appear. Hence it is held that, service is sufficient and they placed exparte.

4. To prove claim of complainant, himself was filed affidavit by way of evidence, who examined as PW-1, documents got marked as Exh.P-1 to Ex.P-6. In this case OPs were placed exparte, they did not file affidavit by way of cross of PW-1, Complainant side evidence closed.

5. Heard the arguments.

6. The points that arises for our consideration are;
(1) Whether there is a deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps?
(2) What Order?

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:-

(1) Yes.
(2) As per final order for the following;

: : R E A S O N S : :

8. Point No:1 :

We have carefully perused the affidavit, documents of Complainant. Case of Complainant is that, on 30-5-2008 he approached OP-1 shop, for purchase of cellular phone, wherein he asked for a good cellular phone set. At that time, OP-1 offered cellular phone set manufactured by OP-2 having model No. Usha Lexus 828B, Colour-Black, IMEL No.353357017255123, for price of Rs.4,300/-. OP-1 has appreciated about quality and good durability of F.M. Radio, Video Audio and battery set. Therefore Complainant purchased the said phone set on belief and trust of OP-1 by paying Rs.4,300/- for that, OP-1 issued invoice No.2614. OP-1 also given warranty card and hand bill covering cellular phone, wherein warranty for cellular phone is mentioned as one year for battery 6 months and for charger 6 months. After couple of months said cell phone started to give troubles like, self disconnecting within one and half minute, non-stopping even after ending call and silver colour of cell phone was also mutilate.

When he was examined as PW-1, documents marked as Ex.P.1 is tax invoice. Ex.P.2 & Ex.P.3 are copy of warranty cards. Ex.P.5 is pomplate. Ex.P.6 is copy of legal notice. We have carefully perused the evidence of Complainant, it is admitted fact that, Complainant has purchased Usha Lexus 828B cellular phone having black colour and its IMEL No.353357017255123, by paying Rs.4,300/- to OP-1. It is also admitted fact that, Complainant has given his mobile at service centre for repair, but he did not heed to request of Complainant, he returned phone set with endorsement that, complaint does not come under warranty. Though in this case OPs placed exparte, hence they did not challenge evidence and documents of Complaint, therefore, we believed evidence and documents of Complainant. Further in this case Complainant has claimed abnormal compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards inconvenience and harassment and Rs.2000/- towards expenses, but he do not adduce cogent and convenience evidence, hence this aspect cannot be considered. Therefore on careful going through evidence and document of Complainant in our considered opinion, repair of cellular phone is within warranty period and there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs, accordingly we answered this point in affirmative.

9. Point No.2:-

In view of the discussions made on point No.1, we also answered this point in affirmative. Hence we proceed to pass the following;

: : O R D E R : :

Complaint is allowed. OP-1 & 2 are directed to replace the mobile set having its product name Usha Lexus 828, Block colour. Further Complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,000/- towards mental agony and costs of the proceedings.