Complaint filed on: 18.09.2012

                                                      Disposed on: 13.03.2017

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.1904/2012

DATED THIS THE 13^th MARCH OF 2017

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant/s: -                           

Paranna.B.B

c/o M.Thimmaiah

no.131, 3^rd B Block,

2^nd stage, BDA Layout, Nagarbhavi,

Bengaluru-560072

-Inperson  

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

1. Sangeetha Mobiles Pvt Ltd

No.27, Synergy House,

MC Layout, 17^th Cross, Vijayanagar,

Bengaluru

Rep by its proprietor

By Adv.Sri. S.N.Madhu

2. Numeric Communication services, No.25/1, Srikanta Mahal, 1^st cross road, Malleshwaram,

Bengaluru

Rep by its Manager

-Inperson

3. Mobitech,

#1038, Dr.Rajkumar Road,

4^th Block, Rajajinagar, next Honda active show room, Bengaluru-10

Rep by its Manager

-Ex-parte

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

            The Complainant has been alleging the defects in the “Sony Ericson Mobile Phone” purchased from the Opposite party no.1/dealer and given it to the service with the Opposite parties no.1 & 2/service centers and thereby has been claiming the purchased amount and damages of Rs.17,000/- with interest and costs.

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that he purchased the “Sony Ericson Mobile Phone” on 21.08.11 from the Opposite party no.1/dealer. Because of the complaints in battery and touch screen, he gave it to the Opposite party no.2/service center on 17.09.11 & on 19.09.11 and gave it to Opposite party no.3/service center on 09.07.12 & on 12.07.12 and then also the problems continued in the mobile. His legal notice dtd.10.08.12 for settlement of the claim was not replied by Opposite parties no.2 & 3 and the Opposite party no.1 replied but not complied the notice and hence this complaint.

          3. The Opposite parties no.1 & 2 have filed their versions separately.  Opposite party no.1 has contended that he being the dealer, as facilitator sold the mobile set without opening the sealed container box.  In terms of the conditions mentioned in the box and also as known to the Complainant, only the manufacturer becomes responsible for the complaints raised by the Complainant and hence the manufacturer has to be impleaded as the proper and necessary party in this case. There was no cause of action against him and hence becomes liable to be dismissed.

          3a. The Opposite party no.2 has reiterated the Complainant’s averments that the mobile was returned on 21.10.11. He contends that the problem in the battery raised after 9 months was attended by the Opposite party no.3 and not by him. The copy of legal notice sent to him was forwarded to the mobile company and there was no deficiency in his service and hence the complaint becomes liable to be dismissed.

          4. Opposite party no.3 is placed ex-parte. The Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed their respective affidavit evidences. The Complainant has relied on Ex-A1 to A8 documents. Opposite party no.1 has mentioned one document but not produced the same also. Opposite party no.2 has not filed any documents Written arguments were filed by all the contesting parties.  Perused the records.

          5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the Complainant establishes that the Sony Ericson company mobile purchased from Opposite party no.1/dealer and given the Opposite parties no.2 & 3/service centers became defective one & refusal to replace by them becomes deficiency in their service ?
2. To what order the parties are entitled ?

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Negative

2) As per final order – for the following  

REASONS

          7. Consumer Dispute No.1: The undisputed facts reveal that the Complainant purchased the “Sony Ericson U20-x10mini pro-Sony Ericson mobile” phone from Opposite party no.1/dealer for Rs.11,428.57 with carry bag for Rs.571.43 wide Ex-A1 invoice dtd.21.08.11.

8. The said mobile was given to Opposite party no.2/service center alleging the problems: bad battery performance, touch screen not working, hanging permanently in menu. The said problems were attended by the Opposite party no.2 wide Ex-A2 two job cards dtd.17.09.11 & 19.10.11.

9. The said phone was given to Opposite party no.3/service center also on 09.07.12 & on 12.07.12 with the complaint that charging not working and sometimes hanging and no battery backup. The Opposite party no.3 attended and returned the mobile by arranging the battery to the Complainant wide Ex-A3 & A4 service job sheets.

10. The Complainant then sent the legal notice as per Ex-A5 by registered post as per Ex-A6, A7 & A8. Though the Complainant has produced small front page of the warranty certificate alongwith the copy of the postal receipt has not produced the sheets consisting of the terms & conditions. The Complainant who alleges the defects referring it as manufacturing defects ought have produced the disputed mobile to this forum as contemplated u/s 13(1)(c) with expert report and he has not done so. Though he has raised the manufacturing defect as the ground, as rightly contended by Opposite party no.1 ought to have impleaded the Sony Ericson company as the party for proper adjudication of the points.

          11. The dealer has sold the mobile in sealed container and has mentioned that the terms & conditions were known to the Complainant. Thereby the Opposite party no.1 at any stretch of imagination cannot be fixed with the problem relating to the relief. Likewise the Opposite party no.2 has attended to the problems of the mobile in terms of the warranty earlier to 19.10.11 itself and no complaint was made against the service rendered by him and hence the Opposite party no.2 also does not become necessary party relating to the relief.  The Opposite party no.3 has stated that only the battery found defective and hence by arranging the battery it was returned to the Complainant.

          12. Ex-A2 to A4 shows that the bad battery was the major complaint and it was properly attended by Opposite party no.3 by replacing the same. It is not relating to the mechanical parts of the mobile. In Ex-A4 service job sheet dtd.12.07.12, there was no other complaint about the working condition of the mobile except the battery. The problem is reported as “only battery defective”. It is also mentioned in Ex-A4 that “set returned” and it was replaced later. This shows that the Complainant had no problems about the working condition of the mobile after it was repaired on 09.07.12 as shown in Ex-A3.

          13. In the legal notice Ex-A5 also it is stated that battery taken by the service center was not returned. His own document Ex-A4 shows that arranged battery from online is pending. There is no evidence by the Complainant about the receipt or non-receipt of the online booked battery. Hence the arrangement made by the service centers cannot be considered as deficiency in service. On the other hand both the service centers rendered their respective services without giving scope for making allegations against their work. Such being the case the alleged defect in the mobile from that stage not proved by the Complainant cannot be connected with the Opposite parties no.1 to 3. In the result the Complainant has failed to establish the Consumer Dispute no.1 and accordingly it is answered in the negative.     

          14. Consumer Dispute No.2: In view of findings of the Consumer Dispute No.1 the Complainant deserves to get the following:

ORDER

          The Complaint of the Complainant is here by dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 13^th day of March 2017).

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Documents marked on behalf of Opposite party/s