Taj Mobile House
This is a discussion on Taj Mobile House within the Mobile Handset forums, part of the Mobile category; Consumer Complaint No: 398/2008 Between: Karri Vara Prakasha Rao, S/o. Appa Rao, Hindu, aged 37 years, R/at Near Railway Gate, ...
- 02-12-2010, 12:27 PM #1Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
Taj Mobile House
Consumer Complaint No: 398/2008
Karri Vara Prakasha Rao, S/o. Appa Rao, Hindu, aged 37 years, R/at Near Railway Gate, N.H.5, Yelamanchili, Visakhapatnam
A n d :
1. Taj Mobile House, Rep. by its Authorised Sinature Priya, Pavan Towers, Near Titan Show room, Dwarakanagar, 1st lane, Visakhapatnam-16.
2. Accel Front Line Limited, VZG Visakhapatnam, D.No.10-50-60/5, Upstairs of Waltair Main Road, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam. PIN 530 016.
… Opposite Parties
This case is coming on for final hearing on 10-12-2009 in the presence of Sri P.Srinivasa Rao for the complainant and Sri B.S.S.T.Srinivas is the 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party is inperson and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following.
: O R D E R :
(As per the Honourable President on behalf of the Bench)
1. The factual matrix of the dispute between cell phone owner and his vendor is that on 2-8-2007 the complainant purchased cell phone from opposite party No.1, a blue 151 model for Rs.1,600/- (Rupees one thousand and six hundred only) with one year warrantee and Ex.A1 bill. When the cell phone started giving trouble, after seven months of purchase, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and he was referred to service centre, Opposite party No.2. The complainant approached it on 16-7-2008, when Ex.A2 acknowledgement slip was given. As can be seen from Ex.A2, the complaint was charging problem and Display was not working and it was also noted that warrantee seal void and the components missing. Evidently, when the opposite party refused to rectify the defect free of cost, it being within warrantee period, the complainant took back the cell on the same day, as can be seen from the endorsement made on Ex.A2 itself. The grievance of the complainant is as the defect arose during warrantee period the opposite parties are bound to repair it. He demands by this complaint that the opposite parties are bound to reply the sale price i.e 1,600/- (Rupees one thousand and six hundred only) with 24% interest and further claimed Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony.
2. As can be seen from their pleadings, the first opposite party denied any liability at all, contending that his job is to look after the sales only and any problem has to be attended by the service centre. The opposite party No.2 service centre, took up a stand that the model had been repaired or opened by 3rd party and even some components are also missing, which would show that it has been tampered with contra to the warrantee conditions and asserted that it is not liable to be provided any free service in these circumstances.
3. At the time of enquiry, both the parties filed affidavits in support of their contentions and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B2. Both the counsels were heard. In view of the respective contentions of either side the point that would arise for determination in this complaint is:
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled for reliefs asked for
4. In this dispute as to the liability towards the customer by their vendor as well as service centre of the cell instrument, though the first opposite party vendor denied his liability and took up a stand, he was concerned with sales only, in our view having sold the cell phone to the complainant, he has got a duty to make good loss due to defects that would arose in this sale, undisputedly during the warrantee period. If the violation of warrantee conditions as pleaded by the service centre, opposite party No.2 is not established, in our view both the opposite parties 1 and 2 would be liable to compensate the complainant for any loss due to the use of such cell phone, during the warrantee period.
5. The service centre, opposite party No.2 took up a plea that the warrantee seal was opened and some parts were missing by the time it was produced before it on 16-7-2008. Ex.B2 the warrantee conditions filed by the opposite party would show certain limitations on the warrantee coverage and one such condition is un authorized person meddling the product without permission. Another condition is the cell number of the product was removed are made illegible. Ex.A2, the customer acknowledgement slip, equivalent to Ex.B1, would show that when it was better before service provider, i.e opposite party No.2, certain components were found missing and the warrantee seal was noted as void which implies that it was tampered. Evidently on the ground that the cell phone was opened by an unauthorized persons, before it was brought to the service centre and even some parts were also found missing, the opposite party No.2 refused to provide free service. In our view the act of opposite party No.2 cannot be found fault as it is in accordance with the warrantee conditions and consequently no deficiency in service could be established against opposite party No.2 or even opposite party No.1. Such being the case, the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs asked for. Accordingly this point is answered against the complaint.
6. In the result, the complaint is dismissed with no costs. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).
Dictated to the Shorthand writer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 17th Day of December, 2009.Regards,
Click here to Become Premium Member
- By adv.singh in forum BroadbandReplies: 0Last Post: 02-06-2010, 09:55 AM
- By admin in forum JudgmentsReplies: 1Last Post: 09-04-2009, 09:03 AM
- By Dr.Manjeet S. Mehta in forum Home Decorative itemsReplies: 0Last Post: 05-07-2009, 01:25 PM