w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Universal Electronics Rep. by tis Offic Incharge Mohd Iqbal Khan v/s Nusrat Jaleel

    F.A.No. 1048 of 2013 Against C.C. No. 407 of 2013

    Decided On, 08 February 2018

    At, Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA
    By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. PATIL VITHAL RAO
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER

    For the Appellant: In Person. For the Respondent: In person.



Judgment Text

Oral Order: (B.N. Rao Nalla, President)

This is an appeal filed by the opposite party aggrieved by the orders of District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad, dated 11.09.2013 made in CC No.407 of 2013 wherein it partly allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to return the value of the cell phone and pay compensation of Rs.2000/- and costs of Rs.1000/-.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.

3. The case of the complainants, in brief, is that the complainant purchased Sony Experia Miro from the Universal Shop at Mehdipatnam in the month of February 2013. After the purchase as the mobile started giving technical problem she approached the said shop who after repairing it handed over to the complainant. After few days it started again giving same problem, she approached the said shop and the technician advised her to go to service Centre at Zarar Chambers Humayun Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. On 03.04.2013 she approached the service Centre and the technician told her to deposit the cell for software update. After the update of software again the mobile giving the problem and she went again to the service Centre on 29.04.2013 and demanded to replace the mobile with a new one but the opposite party could not replace it. Hence, the complaint praying to direct the opposite party to pay the cost of cell phone together with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs.

4. The opposite party called absent and was set exparte.

5. In proof of her case the complainant filed evidence affidavit and got Exs.A1 to A6 marked.

6. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.407 of 2013 by orders dated 11.09.2013 granting the reliefs, as stated in paragraph No.1, supra.

7. Aggrieved by the said decision, the opposite parties no.1 and 3 preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. The opposite party contended that it undertakes only the repairs of the products which has been sold by the actual seller of the products and it did not undertake any responsibility to exchange the product as the appellant is not the seller of the product. Therefore, the liability lies with the actual seller of the product Univercell Telecommunications India Private Limited. It is only a service provider to the Unviercell. The complainant ought to have filed the complaint against the seller of the product but she has wrongly filed the complaint against the appellant. The complaint deserved to be dismissed in limini for the non-joinder of proper parties. Hence, the appellant prayed to allow the appeal by dismissing the complaint.

8. None appears. The respondent has filed her 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 ?

10. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased cell phone Sony Experia Miro from Universal Electronics on 09.02.2013. It is also admitted fact that the after the purchase of the mobile it started giving problem. Though the complainant gave it for repairs to the opposite party they could not rectify the problem then the complainant demanded for its replacement. But the opposite party could not replace it and further informed that the said complaint was informed to the head office and they were waiting for approval from it for replacement of the mobile phone.

11. The appellant/opposite party did not appear before District Forum, in spite of service by regd. post. It was proceeded exparte by the District Forum.

12. The District Forum, on the basis of repairing bills of the mobile, came to the conclusion that mobile was having manufacturing defect and directed the appellant vide impugned order to refund the cost of the cell phone and to pay compensation as well as costs of litigation to the respondent/complainant.

13. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party is that appellant was never having any knowledge of the filing of the consumer complaint against it by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum. It has been submitted that notice of the complaint was not received by the appellant.

14. From the record of the District Forum, it appears that the postal cover was returned back with an endorsement addressee left and the District Forum without ascertaining the correct address from the complainant posted the matter for affidavit evidence of the complainant and later passed orders on 06.09.2013. The District Forum ought to have ascertained the address from the complainant and issued notice to the opposite party once again but instead of doing so it recorded on the docket that as if the opposite party has knowledge about the date of hearing and recorded that it is deemed that notice has been served.

15. Apart from it, the seller and the manufacturer of the mobile in question, have not been made as parties in the consumer complaint. If the respondent/complainant is very much serous in prosecuting the complaint on the ground that mobile was having manufacturing defect, then it was necessary for the respondent/complainant to make the seller and manufacturer also parties in the complaint claiming relief against them regarding manufacturing defects. It has not been done by the respondent/complainant.

16. Considering all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Therefore, the appeal succeeds and it deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is set to be aside and the case is to be remanded back to the District Forum.

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

setting aside the order of the District forum and the case is remanded back to the District Forum , with a direction to provide opportunity to the appellant/opposite party for filing written version, along with affidavit and other material. Opportunity be also provided to the respondent/complainant to amend the cause title and the main body of the complaint, so that seller and manufacturer be also made parties in the complaint, if it is so desired by the respondent/complainant. After doing afore said exercise, the matter be decided afresh on merits. Parties are directed to appear before District Forum on 28.02.2018. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
O R