BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No. 295 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.42 OF 2016 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM KHAMMAM
Between
Kotte Venkateswara Rao S/o late Seethaiah
H.No.11-47, Gompalli Village, Lingapuram Post
Charla Mandal Khammam District
Telangana
Appellant/complainant
AND
- Sangeetha Mobiles Private Limited, Kothagudem
Rep. by tis Manager, C/o Sangeetha Mobile Showroom
Kothagudem, Khammam District, Telangana
- WHAMINFOCOM PVT LTD., rep. by its Manager
Re/o 37, Srinivasa Nilaya Sannidhi Road, Basavanagudi
Bangalore-560004, Karnataka
- CELKON Mobile Swathi CDMA Service Centre
H.No.9-3-3, Oppostie Children Park,
Below Sindhura Electronics, Kothagudem
Khammam District, Telangana
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant Party in person
Counsel for the Respondents Served
QUORUM :
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA, PRESIDENT
&
SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND EIGHTEEN
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
***
This is an appeal filed by the complainant aggrieved by the orders of District Consumer Forum Khammam dated 20.10.2016 made in CC No.42 of 2016 wherein it allowed the complaint directing the opposite partyno.1 to replace the defective cell phone with new one and also directed to pay Rs.500/- towards costs and damages. The complaint against opposite parties’ no.2 and 3 is dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant purchased “WD38-WHAM cell phone” from the opposite party No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.2,105/- on 09.04.2016 which was marketed by the opposite party No.2. The complainant submitted that after using the said phone for about four months the phone went dead and he approached the opposite partyno.1 and complained about the same and the opposite party no.1 after duly checking the same, immediately sent the same to the opposite party No.3, who in turn got the cell phone in his custody for attending its repair and issued job sheet. The complainant further submitted that when he went to collect his cell phone, the opposite party no.3 informed that no service for the said cell phone. The complainant immediately informed to the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party no.1 has taken the cell phone for its repair. Though the complainant visited the opposite party no.1 several times the opposite party no.1 gave evasive replies. Later the complainant came to know that the cell phone supplied by the opposite party No.1 is already used phone and it sold the second hand phone to the complainant. The complainant also submitted that, these clearly show that the opposite party No.1 intentionally sold the second hand / used phone of others as the opposite party No.1 failed to replace the phone with new one. Hence, the complaint praying to direct the opposite parties to replace and handover the new mobile of the same model or to refund the amount of Rs.2,105/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of purchase till realization together with compensation of Rs.30,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-
4. Despite service of notice the opposite parties failed to appear before the District Forum.
5. In proof of his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got Exs.A1 and A2 marked.
6. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.42 of 2016 by orders dated 20.10.2016, as stated in paragraph No.1, supra.
7. Aggrieved by the said decision, he preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. The District Forum ought to have considered and directed the opposite parties to pay exemplary costs of Rs.40,000/- as sought by the complainant.
8. Appellant present in person and was heard. No representation for respondent no.1 to 3. Written arguments of appellant filed.
9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?
10. The case of the complainant is that he purchased WHAM brand cell phone “WD-38-WHAM CELL Phone” by paying Rs.2,105/- on 09-04-2016 from the opposite party No.1. The main allegation of the complainant is that after the purchase of mobile he used the mobile for about nearly four months and thereafter it went dead. The complainant brought the same to the notice of the opposite party no.1 who advised the complainant to approach the opposite party no.2 and in turn the opposite epartyno.2 gave the mobile to the opposite party no.3. The opposite party no.3 by keeping the mobile for few days informed the complainant that there is no service for this kind of mobiles and returned the same to the complainant. The complainant again approached the opposite party no.1 who took the mobile with it and after few days returned it to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant came to know that the said mobile was a used mobile which was sold to the complainant stating that as if the said mobile is a new one. When the same was informed to the opposite party no.1 he promised to replace the same with new one but failed to do so. Hence, he filed complaint before the District Forum and the District Forum allowed the complaint but dissatisfied with the said relief filed the appeal.
11. From a bare perusal of the facts as stated in the appeal, it is abundantly clear that the appellant is aggrieved with the impugned order for having not been awarded compensation, while he has no complaint against the order directing replacement of his mobile phone handset. Awarding compensation is the discretion of the Forum, who delivered it considering the facts and circumstances before it. It is not a matter of caprice of any claimant no doubt the testimony of the appellant remained un-rebutted due to nonappearance of the respondents before the District Forum, but there appears to us no reason to interfere with its order, which is justified on the facts that the respondents did everything to redress the grievances of the appellant but he remained dis-satisfied implying that he was motivated by sense of greed. Hence we see no merit in this appeal and is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the appeal is dismissed but without costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
21.02.2018
