Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/14/1323

Sri.Gangaraju - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uniserve Telecom Pvt Ltd and Other - Opp.Party(s)

28 May 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 25.07.2014

                                                      Disposed on: 28.05.2018

 

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.1323/2014

DATED THIS THE28^thMAY OF2018

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

	Complainant/s	V/s	Opposite party/s
	Sri.Gangaraju, S/o Late MayannaGowda, Aged about 25 years, R/at G-13, G Block, MGOS Quarters, Rajajinagar 6th Block, Bangalore-560 010.   By Sri.Adv.B.R.Prakash	1	Uniserve Telecom Pvt.Ltd., Mobile Mane, No.1111 (180K), 19th Main, 1st Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010. Rep by tis Manager.   Exparte
		2	Numeric Communication Services No.25/1, SrikantaMahal, 1st Cross, Sampangi Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560 003. Rep by its Manager.   In person

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

1.       This complaint has been filed by the complainant as against the Opposite Parties directing to pay a sum of Rs.18,000/- being the value of the mobile along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service, mental agony etc.,

2.       The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that the Complainant has purchased a Xperia C2305 mobile IMEI No.358095058083849 along with SD MICRO 8 GB (hereinafter referred as the said mobile handset) by paying a sum of Rs.18,000/- on 3.5.2014. In this regard, the 1^st Opposite Party has issued an invoice bill No.MR00791/14-15 I the name of the Complainant. The said mobile has one year warranty period from the date of purchase. The Complainant submits that immediately after two days, the Complainant’s mobile was not in working condition and it has a problem on overheating, if changing the photos black lines will come front cover and back cover, no clarity, overheating problem. Immediately, he has approached the 1^st Opposite Party and narrated the fault in the mobile, but the 1^st Opposite Party has not bothered to respond. After repeated requests made by the Complainant, the 1^st Opposite Party’s representative have instructed the Complainant to approach the authorized service center i.e., 2^nd Opposite Party, the Complainant has given the mobile to the said service centre on 4.6.2014, the said service centre has repaired and delivered the said mobile to the Complainant and was tested OK. But the same problem existed and as such, the Complainant has handed over the mobile to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 19.6.2014. Due to the defect of the said mobile, the Complainant has lost connection and contacts of valuable clients and the Complainant was unable to respond to his customers. The Complainant is put to huge loss, hardship and agony. The Complainant has incurred huge loss in his income. The Opposite Party has given the defected mobile to the Complainant and which is not performing properly and its performance is totally poor condition and the said mobile set is still in the condition of 2^nd Opposite Party. Both the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency of service to the Complainant. But the Opposite Parties acts are clearly shows the malafide attitude to cheat the Complainant and deficiency of service by rendering poor service to the customer and the Opposite Parties have violated the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the Complainant for the huge loss incurred to the Complainant. The said mobile is still having warranty period. Due to the Opposite Parties acts, the Complainant has undergone great hardship, loss and injury due to deficiency of service of the Opposite Party.  The Complainant submits that under the said  circumstances, it clearly goes to show that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency of service rendered to the Complainant and has given defected goods to the Complainant and not rectified the said problem and moreover treated the Complainant harshly and Complainant was made to move around the Opposite Party’s officials. The Complainant has been put to severe hardship, loss and injury and suffered untold misery, for which the Complainant has to be compensated. The Complainant has caused a legal notice dt.28.6.2014 to the Opposite Parties by RPAD, the same was served on the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties have not complied the notice, nor given any reply. The Complainant submits that the Opposite Parties have adopted unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.  Hence, this complaint.

3.       Notices were ordered issued to the Opposite Parties. Though the notice served on the 1^st Opposite Party, did not appear, hence placed exparte. The 2^nd Opposite Party has appeared as in person and filed the version.

4.       The sum and substance of the version filed by the 2^ndOpposite Party are that the Complainant has purchased the handset from the 1^st Opposite Party is admittedly true by paying a sum of Rs.18,000/- and the same handset was also has one year warranty is also true and one year warranty means “the company is provides the free of cost repairs which the handset had problems (excluding physical damage and liquid tamper) and the 2^nd Opposite Party is the only repairer not the manufacturer, hence the 2^nd Opposite Party is not authorized to replace are act in regard this. Immediately after two days, the Complainant’s mobile was not in working condition and it has a problem on overheating, if changing the photos black lines will come from front cover and back cover, no clarity over heating problem, is all false allegations and the Complainant is called upon to furnish proof of this said allegation. Thereafter the Complainant has approached the 1^st Opposite Party stating that the above all problems, thereafter the 1^st Opposite Party have suggested to go authorized service centre that is 2^nd Opposite Party. After approaching the 2^nd Opposite Party, this Opposite Party rectified the above said all problems, with very much working in good condition is true. After that, the Complainant had same problem and came back to this Opposite Party was also true. For the second time, the Complainant come up with same problem, considering the same problem of the Complainant, this Opposite Party has replaced the mother board of the mobile handset and now it is functioning very much good. This Opposite Party submits that the Complainant’s handset before receiving itself notices to all our customers is that data backup should be taken by customer before depositing the device for service. Hence, in this circumstances, this Opposite Party not at all responsible of any data loss. Thereafter, the Complainant has incurred huge loss, hardship and agony, loss in his income and which is not performing properly and the Opposite Party provided the defective handset, all allegation is false and misleading to this Forum and filing this false complaint for the purpose of harassing this Opposite Party and publicity of bad name to the reputed and authorize service centre. The said mobile is still having warranty period is admittedly true, but due to the Opposite Parties acts, the Complainant has undergone great hardship, loss and injury due to deficiency of service of the Opposite Party is false and illegal. Under such circumstances, it clearly goes to show that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency of service rendered to the Complainant and has given defected goods to the Complainant and not rectified the said problem and moreover treated the Complainant harshly and Complainant was made to move around the responsible office, is all fraudulent and misleading allegation. The Complainant has issued a legal notice dt.28.6.2014 to the 2^nd Opposite Party is may be true, but the Complainant has to address the notice to the company who is the manufacturer of the device, they are only the service provider, hence, this Opposite Party is not liable. The Opposite Parties submits that the rectification with the mother board to the device and kept the phone for two days for observation, thereafter the handset is functioning very much good condition. After all problem solved, this Opposite Party called the Complainant to collect the handset, but the Complainant ignored and failed to collect the handset. On this ground and other grounds, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5.       The Complainant to substantiate his case filed his affidavit evidence.  The Complainant though filed list of documents, did not mark. Authorized representative of the 2^nd Opposite Party filed affidavit evidence.and none of the documents marked. The Complainant has filed written arguments. The 2^nd Opposite Party did not file the written arguments. Heard both sides.

          6.       The points that arise for our consideration are:

1)Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the 

part of the OPs, if so, whether he isentitled for the relief sought

for?

 

          2) What Order?

 

          7.Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point No.1 : Affirmative

Point No.2 :As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

          8. POINT NO.1:    We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint filed by the Complainant as well as the version filed by the 2^nd Opposite Party. In the instant case, the 1^st Opposite Party is the seller of the said mobile handset. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the authorized service centre. The main grievance of the Complainant is that immediately after two days from the date of purchase of the said mobile handset, he found a problem of overheating, if changing the photos black lines will come front cover and back cover, no clarity, overheating problem. In this context, he has approached the 1^st Opposite Party who instructed the Complainant to approach the authorized service centre i.e.2^nd Opposite Party. Accordingly, the Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party and handed over the said mobile handset on 4.6.2014. The 2^nd Opposite Party has repaired it and delivered it to the Complainant and it was tested OK. Thereafter, the Complainant found the same problem in the said mobile handset. Hence, again handed over the said mobile handset to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 19.6.2014. Due the defect of the said mobile, the Complainant lost connection and contacts of valuable clients and he was unable to respond to his customers. Hence, he put in great hardship till date of filing the complaint with the 2^nd Opposite Party. Hence, the 2^nd Opposite Party committed deficiency of service. To prove his bonafide, the Complainant has issued legal notice to the Opposite Parties,but they did not respond. The say of the 2^nd Opposite Party is quite differentthat it is only a service centre. It has rectified the problems found in the said mobile handset.  After all the problems solved, the 2^nd Opposite Party called the Complainant to collect the handset, but the Complainant ignored and failed to collect the handset. If that being the case of the 2^nd Opposite Party,why did not respond to the notice issued by the Complainant. If the 2^nd Opposite Party has properly responded to the Complainant,he has no any occasion to approach this forum to get his redress remedy. In view of this matter, if the 2^nd Opposite Party is directed to handover the said repaired mobile handset to the Complainant, we hope ends of justice would meet sufficiently.

9.       In the instant case, the Complainant has not made the manufacturer as a party. In the absence of the manufacturer being a party to the proceedings, this Forum cannot direct it either to replace the handset or else to pay the amount covered under the invoice. But anyhow an option kept open to the Complainant, if the said problem found in the mobile handset, he is at liberty to take proper steps as against the manufacturers and also as against the 1^st Opposite Party. At this stage, the claim against the 2^nd Opposite Party does not survive for consideration since the 2^nd Opposite Party has already repaired the said mobile handset. Looking into the circumstances of the case, we do not propose to pay any compensation much less cost of the litigation. Accordingly, we answer the Point No.1 in the affirmative.

10.     POINT NO.2:  In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

        The complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed. The 2^nd Opposite Party is directed to handover the repaired Xperia C2305 mobile handset bearing IMEINo.358095058083849 to the Complainant in a proper usable condition within 6 weeks from today.

          If the same problem again found in the said mobile handset, the Complainant is at liberty to take proper steps against the manufacturers and also as against the 1^st Opposite Party. Looking into the circumstances of the case, we do not propose to pay any compensation much less cost of the litigation.

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 28^thMay 2018).

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER	(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Gangaraju., who being the Complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Doc-1	Copy of the credit bill dt.3.5.2014
Doc-2	Copy of the service job sheet dt.19.6.2014
Doc-3	Copy of the Retail Invoice dt.4.6.2014
Doc-4	Copy of the legal notice dt.28.6.2014
Doc-5	Postal receipts and acknowledgements

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

 

Manjunath P.K., who being the Opposite Party was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party

 

Anx-R1	Copy of the service job sheet dt.4.6.2014
Anx-R2	Copy of the Retail Invoicedt.4.6.2014
Anx-R3	Copy of the service job sheet dt.19.6.2014
Anx-R4	Copy of the credit bill of uniserve telecom pvt. Ltd., dt.3.5.2014

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R) MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL) PRESIDENT