BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.17/2016

Dated this the  2^nd day of November 2016.

K. Lavanya, D/o Kumar                       

No.24, Chinnasamy Thottam          

Vanarapet,                

Pondicherry.

                                                ….     Complainant

Vs.

1. The Proprietor        

    Guna Electronics                       

    No.151, Thiruvalluvar Salai          

    1^st Floor, Pillaithottam

    Puducherry.  

2. LAVA International Limited  

    A-56, Sector 64       

    Noida – 201 301              

    Uttarpradesh                          

                                                          ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            :  Party-in-person

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:          :  Exparte

                                                  O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru. A. ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the Opposite Parties;

1. to replace the newly and full-fledged battery by receiving the defected battery to the complainant;
2. To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service caused by the Opposite Parties;
3. To pay cost of this complaint.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

          The complainant purchased a mobile battery on 02.03.2016 for a sum of Rs.1020/- from the first opposite party vide bill No. 131.  At the time of purchase, the first opposite state that the battery has warranty period of one year, but warranty card was not given to the complainant.  Believing the words of first opposite party, the complainant purchase the above said battery and used the same.  It is stated by the complainant that right from the beginning of the using of the said battery, the battery was not charged fully, however with a hope and belief that at the beginning stage, the said battery will be functioned slowly, but to the shock and surprise, the said battery continuously not functioned by keeping the charge, in contra, during the time of charging, the mobile phone got very heat and therefore, the mobile phone namely, Lava Iris Fuel 60 purchased for a sum of Rs.8,500/- fell in repairs often and often.  The default of functioning of the battery continued upto one month, later the complainant approached the opposite party regarding the improper works of the battery, by the opposite party did not responded for the same, however stated to buy a new one on cost.   Further the first opposite party ashamed the complainant in front of other customers which put the complainant into mental agony.  The complainant issued a legal notice to the first opposite party.  The first opposite party though received the said legal notice, did not respond for the same.  The opposite parties caused deficiency in service, for which the complainant is to be compensated by the opposite parties.    Hence, this complaint.

3.       The opposite parties remained absent and were set exparte.

4.       On the side of the complainant, he has chosen to examine himself as CW.1 and marked Exs.C1 to C3 and MO1.

5.  Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties attributed any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

6.  Point No.1:

          The complainant purchased one mobile phone battery from the first opposite party for her mobile Lava Iris Fuel 60 mobile phone on 02.03.2016 for a sum of Rs.1020/- vide Ex.C1 with oral warranty of one year warranty.    Hence, the complainant is the consumer.

7.       Point No.2:

          The complainant examined as CW1 and marked Exs.C1 to C3.  The Opposite Parties were duly served, but called absent and set ex parte.  The complainant submits that she has purchased one battery for her mobile phone from the first opposite party on 02.03.2016 by paying a sum of Rs.1020/-.    Ex.C1 is the photocopy of cash receipt issued by the first opposite party for the alleged purchase made by the complainant.    The complainant further alleged that at the time of purchase, the first opposite party informed orally to the complainant that the battery has warranty of one year.  The complainant alleged that when she charged the battery, it was not fully charged, on the contrary, her mobile was getting heat and ultimately, the mobile phone itself got repaired.  When she informed the same to the first opposite party, they have asked her to buy a new one on payment of cost.  When she narrated the warranty disclosed by them at the time of purchase, the first opposite party disgraced her in front of other customers.  Since the first opposite party failed to replace a new battery, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 12.04.2016 Ex.C2, even though the same was received by the  first opposite party, they had not replaced a new battery to the complainant.  The complainant further alleged that due to improper functioning of the battery, her cell phone also got damaged.  Due to the act of the opposite parties she suffered  monetary loss and mental agony and the same should be compensated.

8.       From the above facts and evidence adduced by the complainant, it is clear from Ex.C1 that the alleged battery was purchased by the complainant from the first Opposite Party on 02.03.2013 for Rs.1,020/- with oral warranty period of one year.      Further, on perusal of Ex.C2, the copy of notice date 12.04.2016, the efforts taken by the complainant ended in vein and the purpose for which the battery purchased by the complainant was not served.  Moreover, her cell phone also got damaged and it gave mental agony, loss and sufferings.  It is alleged by the complainant that when she reported the defect and requested to replace a new battery, the first opposite party neither replaced the unit nor taken the issue with the manufacturer.     To refute the allegation of the complainant, the Opposite Parties did not appear before this Forum to let in evidence even though they have received summons from this Forum.  The above act of the Opposite Parties clearly establish the complainant's case and hence, this Forum has come to the conclusion that the Complainant has proved the negligent act and unfair trade practice of the Opposite Parties.  Thus, the complainant is entitled for the claim and Opposite Parties are liable for their negligent act, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

          9. The battery along with mobile phone MO1 is with the District Forum and the first opposite party is ordered to collect the alleged battery from this Forum after compliance of this order.   The complainant is entitled to get back the cell phone from this Forum after the appeal time.

10.     Point No.3:

          In view of the decision taken in point No.2, this complaint is hereby allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed to 

1. Return the cost of the battery i.e. Rs.1,020/- to the complainant;
2. Pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-  as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings.

The above said order should be complied within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

Dated this the 2^nd day of November 2016.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:  NIL

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:  Nil

COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS: Nil

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:

MO1           Cellphone along with battery.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

     MEMBER