STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Telangana

First Appeal No. FA/11/2014

(Arisen out of Order Dated 22/11/2013 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/40/2012 of
District Hyderabad-III)

1. K.V. Chandra Shekar S/o. K. Chinna Sekhaiah, Age:

35 Years, Occ: Pvt. Job, R/o. C/o. A. Koteshwar Rao
H.No.17-50/1, Shranabasappa Colony, Opp: Telephone
Exchange, Shadnagar (M)Mahabubnagar District. ...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. 1. Adarsh Mobiles Rep. by its Proprietor H.No.
7-17/A, Saraswathi Complex, Besides Vyjanti Theatre,
Nacharam, Main Road, Hyderabad-500 076.
2. 2. Fly Spice Maxx (Onida) Rep. by its Servicing
Centre Manager, Authorized Servicing Centre, Sai
Mobile shop No.32, Opp: Chermas, M.G. Road,
Near Paradise, Secunderabad-A.P.
3. 3. South Region Company, Meridian Mobiles Limited,
Rep. by its Manager, (Fly Mobiles) No.2, CSD, Acharya
Tulasi Marg, 2nd Main,
Second Floor, Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore.
4. 4. Fly Mobiles Support Centre, Veda Communications,
Rep. by its Proprietor, Shop NO.2-2-2, Plot No.2,
Opp: Modern High School, Mahabubnagar-A.P. ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER

For the Appellant:

For the Respondent:
Dated : 31 Jan 2018
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:

AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No. 11 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.40 OF 2012 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-III

HYDERABAD

-1-
Between

K.V.Chandra Shekar S/o K.Chinna Sekhaiah

aged 35 years, Occ: Private Job

R/o C/o A.Koteshwar Rao, H.No.17-50/1

Saranabasappa Colony, Opp: Telephone Exchange

Shadnagar Mandal, Mahboobnagar

...Appellant/complainant

1. Adarsh Mobiles

rep. By tis Proprietor

H.No.7-17/A, Saraswathi Complex

Besides Vyjanti Theatre

Nacharam, Main Road,

Hyderabad-500 076

2. Fly Spice Maxx (Onida)

rep. By its Service Centre Manager

Authorizded Service Centre,

Sai Moabile Shop No.32, Groudn Floor

Hardy Complex, Opp: Chermas,

M.G.Road, Near Paradise,

Secudnerabad

-2-
3. South Regional Company

Meridian Mobiles Limtied

rep. By tis Manager (Fly Mobiles)

No.2, CSD, Acharya Tulasi Marg

2 nd Main Second Floor, Gandhi Nagar

Bangalore

4. Fly Moabiles Support Centre

Veda Communications, rep. By

its Proprietor, shop No.2-2-2, Plot No.2

Opp: Modern High School

Mahaboobnagar

...Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellants Sri K.V.Chandrasekhar

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Held sufficient

Counsel for the Respondent No.2` Served

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 Not pressed

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 Service

-3-
QUORUM :

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA, PRESIDENT

&

SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER

WEDNESDAY THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY

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-III Hyderabad wherein the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

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 a mobile
phone Model FLY DS 160 from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.2,200/-. After the date of
purchase of the mobile, it worked for one month and thereafter started giving trouble and when he
visited the authorized service agent, opposite party no.2 he was informed that the mobile was not
functioning and advised to approach the opposite party no.1 and requested for replacement of the
mobile. Though the complainant requested for replacement but the opposite party no.1 refused to
do so. The manufacturer have used sub-standard parts parts for the mobile phone and that
although it is covered by warranty for one year have refused to repair or replace the mobile. The

-4-
complainant got issued a legal notice on 22.09.201 for which there was no reply. The opposite
parties have sold a defective piece and thus have been deficient in service and adopted an unfair
trade practice. Hence, the complaint praying to direct the opposite parties to replace the mobile
instrument with anew one and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency of service and unfair trade
practice together with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-.

4. Despite service of notice on the opposite parties no.1 to 3, they called absent.
Service on the opposite party no.3 though served through publication there is no representation on
behalf of it.

5. In proof of the case of the complainant, he filed his evidence affidavit and got
Exs.A1 to A8 marked. The complainant not pressed the appeal against the opposite party no.3.

6. The District Forum after considering the material available on record,

dismissed the complaint bearing CC No.40 of 2012 by orders dated 22.11.2013.

7. Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that
the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. The complainant contended
that though the warranty was for on e year the mobile started giving trouble within one monthly
only. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence from the opposite parties the District Forum ought
not to have presumed that the cell phone was without any defect for nine months. The District
Forum ought to have seen that Ex.A3 clearly shows that handset was given for repairs without
battery and it is the handset which was taken by opposite parties and not the battery. Hence, the
appellant/complainant prayed to allow the appeal and also allow the complaint as prayed for.

8. None appears. Since the matter pertains to the year 2014, the appeal is
reserved for orders with a liberty to the appellant and the respondents no.2 & R4 to file their
written arguments on or before 22.01.2018 but none of the parties are filed written arguments.

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 ?

-5-
10. It is not in dispute that on 11.10.2010 the complainant purchased the mobile
from opposite party no.1 for a sum of RS.2,200/- which is evidenced vide Ex.A1. It is also not in
dispute that the warranty certificate issued by Meridian Mobile Pvt Ltd., for a period of one year
for “ transceiver”, for a period of 6 months for the charger and battery for three months for head
set and data cable which is evidenced vide Ex.A2. The complainant on 01.08.2011 gave his
mobile to the opposite party no.2 as his mobile battery “not stored, no charging deep discharge”
evidenced vide Exs.A3. The complainant purchased the mobile on 11.10.2010 and he gave his
mobile for the problem of battery has not been charging and it draining fast on 01.08.2011 i.e.,
more than 9 months of the date of purchase for the problem of fast discharging of battery and also
the problem of not charging the battery. It is evidence from the warranty certificate issued by the
opposite party no.3 that the warranty is valid for the transceiver for a period of one year i.e., until
11.10.2011 and for a period of six months for the battery i.e., until 11.04.2011. Ex.A3 shows that
the complainant was given mobile phone for the problem of battery has not been storing and has
not been charging on 01.08.2011 i.e., more than nine months of the date of purchase of the mobile
set. In such a situation it can be said that the warranty for the battery has been expired when the
complainant given the mobile to the opposite party no.2 for the problem of battery as the warranty
extended for the battery is only 6 months i.e., until 11.04.2011. Therefore, the problem of the
battery that the complainant reported is beyond the warranty period

11. In the above facts and circumstances, we do not see any merit in the
contentions of the appellant and accordingly find no fault with the findings of the forum below. In
the circumstances discussed supra, we answer the point framed for consideration in paragraph
No.9 , supra, in favour of the respondents/opposite parties and against the appellant/complainant.

In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly dismissed but no costs.

PRESIDENT MEMER

31.01.2018

[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA]

PRESIDENT

[HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO]

JUDICIAL MEMBER

-6-