BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER
Wednesday, 7th September 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 44/ 2016
Onteddu Sivasankar Reddy, S/o Rosi Reddy,
aged about 58 years, Hindu, Kapu, Agrucluture,
D.No. 4.2.308, Venkateswaraswamy Street,
Pulivendula town and Municipality, Kadapa District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Managing Director, Cellkon, Celkon Impex Pvt. Ltd.,
Hi-tech City, Hyderabad, Telangana State.
2. Proprietor, Karishma Cellor, Building of Hanuman Lodge,
D.No. 3-5-35, Near Andhra Bank, Pulivendula,
Kadapa District, A.P. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 29-8-2016 in the presence of Sri G. Siva Kumar, Advocate for complainant and Opposite parties are appeared in person and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite parties to refund cell phone cost of Rs. 1,620/-, to pay Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 8,000/- towards costs of the Complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the Complainant purchased celkon mobile model No. C59 from O.P.2 manufactured by O.P.1 company on 5-1-2015 under receipt No. 809 for Rs. 1,620/-. Subsequently, the Complainant inserted SIM in the cell phone and tried to contact others but call was not gone. He was not heard the voice of others to whom he contacted. The same SIM when used in other cell phone that worked well. So there was no net work problem thus whenever he made calls he felt lot of inconvenience and he was unable to know information from other side and he felt ashamed before his relatives. When he contacted O.P. 2 he advised to approach the servicing center at Hyderabad. When the Complainant telephoned to them they said that there was problem in the phone. The Complainant returned phone on 28-10-2015 later the same was returned to Complainant and he sued the same but the same problem continued. Thereafter he issued legal notice on 11-11-2015 to the Opposite parties but no response from them. Hence, this complaint for the above reliefs.
3. Opposite parties 1 &2 filed counter admitting the purchase of celkon C59 handset by O.P.2 for an amount of Rs. 1,620/- with one year warranty. It is further admitted that the Complainant approached celkon servicing center at Hyderabad in October 2015 and the problem was duly rectified and returned to the Complainant. Thereafter the Complainant never complained about the problem or defect in the handset for the servicing center with regard to any existing problem. But the Complainant without just reason files this complaint for wrongful gain. The warranty period to the handset is only one y ear from the date of purchase and the same was rectified on4-1-2016 and the complaint filed on 8-1-2016 is barred by limitation. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties as claimed by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed against the Opposite parties?
- To what relief?
5. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A4 documents are marked and on behalf of Opposite parties Ex. B1 document is marked.
6. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material placed on record by the parties.
7. Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is contended by the Complainant in person that ever from the time of purchase of celkon phone C59 under Ex. A1 from O.P.2 it did not properly work and there was hearing problem from other side and in spite of approaching the Opposite parties no remedy was provided to him. Hence, there is deficiency in service and the complaint is not barred by limitation. Thus the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed against the Opposite parties.
8. On the other hand Opposite parties contended that though there was problem in cell phone the same was rectified as per Ex. B1 on 28-10-2015 and there was no problem there after but the complaint was filed only for wrongful gain. So not entitled for the reliefs claimed by the Complainant.
9. The Complainant purchased Celkon C59 cell phone from O.P.2 on 5-1-2015 under Ex. A1 bill for Rs. 1,620/- and it is admitted that the same has got one year warranty. According to the Complainant cell phone was properly worked ever since the date of purchase and the other side voice was not audible to him when he made calls. As per Ex. B1 the handset was sent to service center and the problem was attended on 28-10-2015. So it is proved by the Complainant after purchase on 10-1-2015 there was problem in handset of the cell phone purchased by the Complainant and the same was attended by the Opposite parties. It is the consistent case of Complainant that the handset continued the same problem subsequently also and in spite of his requests the same was not attended by the Opposite parties. So he issued legal notice on 11-11-2015 under Ex. A2. A perusal of Ex. A2 clearly goes to show that in spite service by O.P.1 the problem was continued. So the Complainant requested to replace the cell phone with new one or to return the cost of it. In spite of received notice the Opposite parties are not complied the demand of Complainant. So he filed the complaint.
10. A overall consideration of material placed on record by the Complainant and Opposite parties we hold that there was a problem in celkon cell phone purchased by Complainant under Ex. A1 from O.P.2 within a few days after the purchase of it and the problem was attended in the first instance as per Ex. B1 by the Opposite parties. But still the problem persisted however, the Opposite parties not attended the problem in spite of notice to them. Unless there is problem there was no need to Complainant to issue notice to Opposite parties with regard to the problem of cell phone purchased for small amount. Therefore, viewed in this angle we hold there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties and the Complainant is entitled for return of cost of celkon C59 cell phone Rs. 1,620/-, Rs. 1,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.
11. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs. 1,620/- (Rupees one thousand six hundred and twenty only) towards cost of cell phone and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the Complainant, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till realization. The Complainant shall return the cell phone to the Opposite parties under acknowledgement.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 7th September 2016
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 Cash bill issued by O.P.2 dt. 5-1-2015 for Rs. 1,620/-.
Ex. A2 Legal notice issued to the Opposite parties dt. 11-11-2015.
Ex. A3 Postal receipts.
Ex. A4 Acknowledgment card.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents : -
Ex. B1 P/c of service job sheet dt. 28-10-2015 filed by the Opposite parties.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri G. Siva Kumar, Advocate for Complainant
- The Managing Director, Cellkon, Celkon Impex Pvt. Ltd.,
Hi-tech City, Hyderabad, Telangana State.
3) Proprietor, Karishma Cellor, Building of Hanuman Lodge,
D.No. 3-5-35, Near Andhra Bank, Pulivendula, Kadapa Dist, A.P
B.V.P.
