State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Yelchuri Rama Nageswara Rao vs Tata Teleservices Ltd,# 5-9-62, Khan ... on 21 September, 2007
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM , PRAKSAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM , PRAKSAM DISTRICT AT
ONGOLE.
PRESENT: SRI CH.
RAMESH BABU., M.Sc., B.L., PRESIDENT (FAC)
SMT. M. RAGHAVA
RANI, MEMBER.
This the 21st day
of September, 2007
CC: 262/2007
BETWEEN:
Yelchuri Rama Nageswara Rao,
S/o. Koteswara Rao, aged 40 years,
Hindu, Lambadi donka, R/o. Ongole,
Prakasam District. ...
Complainant.
Vs.
1. Tata Teleservices Ltd.,
# 5-9-62, Khan
Lateef Khan Building,
Fateh
Maidan Road, Hyderabad 01.
2. Tata Indicom Dealer,
Paran Tele Mart,
Hanuman Complex,
Opp. Power Office,
Kurnool
Road, Ongole. Opposite
parties.
COUNSEL FOR
COMPLAINANT: SRI.
B. SRINIVASA RAO,
ADVOCATE,
ONGOLE.
COUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1: SRI K. SIVA PRASAD,
ADVOCATE,
ONGOLE.
COUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2: EX-PARTE.
This complaint is
coming on 17.09.2007 for final hearing before us and having stood over this day for consideration this
Forum delivered the following:
ORDER:
1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties.
2. The main case of the complainant as per petition averments is that the complainant purchased cell phone for an amount of Rs.1,800/- in advance payment and the hand set was not functioned properly and it was got repair to 2nd opposite party three times i.e. in the month of October, December, at last in the month of June, 2007 it was got full repair and the same was handed over to the 2nd opposite party for repair and got receipt on 2nd June, 2007, the main problem in the hand set voice brake down and call cut to that effect the bill becomes more. The complainant is explained the same to the 2nd opposite party and made some repairs in the hand set but the problem was not rectified. On 2nd June, 2007 the said hand set handed over to 2nd opposite party for repair. The complainant received a bill from the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs.7,210/- on receipt of the bill the complainant approached to 2nd opposite party and asked the same. They are promised that they settle matter within couple of days. But the opposite parties not turn up till to day.
3. The complainant prayed for to deliver the hand set with Zero bill, for payment of compensation for an amount of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and for Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service of the opposite parties and for costs of the petition.
4. The 1st opposite party filed counter and 2nd opposite party is not filed counter and set ex-parte. The 1st opposite party filed counter mainly stating that infact, the opposite No.2 is the dealer of the opposite party No.1 and is an independent entity and there is no any master or servant relationship between the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 there is no cause of action for filing the complaint against this opposite party and there is deficiency in service provider by this opposite party admitted by the complainant. Therefore, the present claim is tobe rejected. The main prayer is for new hand set with Zero billing such a prayer who only be made only against the manufacturer of hand set and not against this opposite party more over the complainant has to clear outstanding amount due by him. So, the complaint claims made by the complainant is total unjustified and the same is liable to be rejected. The opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint on the ground there is no deficiency in service.
5. Now, the point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service by the opposite party in selling of the defective cell phone to the complainant or not?
6. The complainant filed documents, which were marked as Exs.A1 to Exs.A4. Ex.A1 is the invoice-cum-delivery challan dated 07.09.2007. Ex.A2 is the phone bill for the month of june,2007 dated 18.06.2007. Ex.A3 is the hand receipt dated 02.06.2007. Ex.A4 is the endorsement back side of receipt dated 11.12.2006. The opposite party not filed any document towards their contention.
7. The documents filed by the complainant clearly proves and establishes that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,800/- towards advance and it is purchased for an amount of Rs.5,400/- and the balance amount of Rs.3,600/- to be paid by the complainant. The Ex.A3 is the hand receipt dated 2nd June, 2007 clearly proves and establishes that the hand set is within the custody of the second opposite party.
8. The main contention of the opposite party No.1 is that the opposite party No.1 is the dealer and opposite party No.2 is the retailer. The manufacturer of the cell phone is necessary parties for replacement of the cell phone or to compensate the complaint for the manufacturing defects raised by the complainant. When the manufacturer is not a party to the proceedings the complaint is not maintainable and the opposite party No.2 is only service provider, but not manufacturer. So, the documents filed by the complainant also not shows or proves that opposite party No.1 and 2 are the manufacturers and they are liable to pay compensation to the complainant. In the absence of any such evidence from the complainant side on whom the burden lies, the version of the complainant is not accepted by us.
9. The complainant fail to establish that there is a manufacturing defect and also the complaint is not maintainable on the ground that non-adding of the necessary party to the proceedings, who is the manufacturer of the cell phone of the complainant.
10. In the result, the petition is dismissed, with an observation that the complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint after adding manufacturer is a necessary party to the proceedings.
Dictated to the shorthand-writer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 21st day of September, 2007.
MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC) DIST.FORUM,ONGOLE.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY NONE NONE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANTS:
Ex.A1: 07.09.2007 : Invoice-cum-delivery challan Ex.A2: 18.06.2007 : Phone bill for the month of june,2007 Ex.A3: 02.06.2007 : Hand receipt Ex.A4: 11.12.2006 : Endorsement back side of receipt DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY : NIL PRESIDENT (FAC)