C.C. No. 59 / 2009
Between

Dr.M.N.Balaji, S/o M.Narayana Reddy,

Hindu, aged about 38 years,

Doctor by profession, residing at

Ponniamman Koil Street,

Chittoor Town and District.

… Complainant

And
1) UNIVERCELL Telecommunications India

Private Limited, represented by its

Regional Manager, Regional Office situated

at D.No.4-2-615, Beside Tarakarama Theatre,

Ramkote, Hyderabad – 500 019.



2) UNIVERCELL Telecommunications India

Private Limited, represented by its

Manager, Business premises situated in

D.No.18-301, P.H.Road,

Chittoor Town and District.

… Opposite Parties.

This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 17.11.2009 and upon perusing the complaint, written versions, affidavits, material documents and on hearing Sri E.Sugunasekhar Reddy, counsel for the complainant, and the opposite party remained exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:-


ORDER

DELIVERED BY Sri. V. Parthasaradhi Rao, B.A., L.L.B., President

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

This is a complaint filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 to exchange the defective cell phone of the complainant with a new one and in default to refund the price of the cell phone i.e., Rs.6,963/- with interest at 18% p.a. and for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service.

The complainant submits that he purchased a good quality Cellular/ Mobile Phone Sony Ericsson from the 2nd opposite party. The complainant submits that soon after purchasing the mobile phone it started giving troubles to him. When enquired with the 2nd opposite party for rectifying the defective cell phone, the 2nd opposite party assured and got repaired the same and returned to the complainant. Still it was giving trouble to him. Again on second occasion, he handed over the cell phone to the 2nd opposite party for rectifying the defect in the cell phone. The 2nd opposite party promised that he would set right the cell phone within 10 days. But he did not do so.

The complainant submits that he issued legal notice to both the opposite parties calling upon them to exchange the defective hand-set /mobile phone with a new one or to pay Rs.6,963/- towards cost of the cell phone and also Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service.

The complainant submits that the 2nd opposite party having received the notice on 23.03.2009 failed to comply the same and so he filed this complaint and the complaint may be allowed with costs.
The opposite parties were served with notices. Though they appeared before this Forum, they did not file their written version. Inspite of granting number of adjournments and sufficient time. Since the opposite parties 1 & 2 are not evincing interest, the matter is posted for written version finally. Yet the opposite parties did not file their written version. Since 13.07.2009, there was no representation on behalf of opposite parties. On 18.09.2009 also the opposite parties are called absent and they are set exparte. This Forum is proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of the record available with it.

The points for consideration are:

1) Whether the opposite parties sold defective Sony Ericsson to the

complainant ? if so whether they committed deficiency in service?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to a new cell phone on the value of

cell phone Rs.6,963/- together with interest at 18% P.A. from the date

of purchase of the cell phone ?

3) To what relief ?

The complainant filed his Chief Affidavit as PW-1 and marked Exs. A1 to

A45.

Points No. 1 to 5 :-

It is the case of the complainant that he purchased Sony Ericsson cell phone on 06.05.2008 from the 2nd opposite party and the cell phone stopped due to trouble from the date of its purchase. The 2nd opposite party has not rectified the defect in the cell phone inspite of several requests and legal notice. Though the opposite parties 1 & 2 appeared before this Forum, they have not chosen to fill their Written Version. The complainant filed Ex.A1 the Original bill dated 06.12.2008 pertaining to the cell phone, Ex.A2 is Copy of Job Sheet dated 04.03.2009, Ex.A3 is Copy of letter of undertaking dated 14.03.2009, Ex.A4 is Office copy of Legal notice dated 20.03.2009 and Ex.A5 Returned Registered cover with Acknowledgement.


The letter of undertaking Ex.A3 shows that the 2nd opposite party received the hand set Sony Ericsson for repairing it and promised to rectify the defect in the cell phone within 10 days. Ex.A1 and A3 prima facie reveal that the 2nd opposite party sold defective cell phone and it was not rectified. Therefore the complainant made out a case to claim the new cell phone in the place of the old one or value of the cell phone of Rs.6,963/-

Since the 2nd opposite party has not made any appearance before this Forum nor has given any reply to the allegations in the complaint, I feel it proper to direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 to pay the value of cell phone Rs.6,963/- instead of exchanging the defective cell phone with a new one. Hence the 2nd opposite party is directed to pay the cost of the cell phone Rs.6,963/- together with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of complaint till realization.

Points 1 & 2 are answered accordingly.

Point No.3 :-

In the result the complaint is allowed for Rs.6,963/- (Rupees six thousand nine hundred and sixty three only) together with interest at 9% P.A. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay the amount within six weeks. The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only)

Dictated to the Stenographer, in open court transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 17th day of November, 2009.