Nokia

adminadmin Administrator
edited August 2014 in Mobile
ftyk miHkksDrk fookn izfrrks"k eap] guqekux< ¼jkt0½
ifjokn la[;k& 216@2008


ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Jh vk'kdj.k iztkir&v/;{k]
Jherh nqxkZ 'kekZ& lnL;
Jh fot; xks;y& lnL;


lanhi flaxyk iq= Jh nsojkt flaxyk tkfr vxzoky fuoklh lSDVj 9 foLrkj edku ua0 89&90 guqekux< ta0 rglhy o ftyk guqekux<
&& ifjoknh
cuke~

1& Hkkjr jsfM;ks dkiksZjs'ku tfj, ekfyd fuoklh 78&79 Hkxrflag pkSd guqekux< ta0

2& uksfd;k bafM;k izk0 fy0 f)fr; eafty dkef'kZ;y Iyktk jsMylu gksVy ,u ,p 8 eghikyiqj ubZ fnYyh 37 tfj, izca/k lapkyd
&&& vizkFkhZx.k


ifjokn vUrxZr /kkjk 12 miHkksDrk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e


mifLFkr % izkFkhZ vf/koDrk Jh vuqt MksMk
vizkFkh&1 ds vf/koDrk Jh eksguyky eqUtky
vizkFkhZ&2 ds vf/koDrk Jh jktsUnz flag 'ks[kkor


&% fu.kZ; %&
fnukad%& 30-3-09


}kjk Jh vk'kdj.k iztkir& v/;{k A


1& ifjoknh us vizkFkhZx.k ds f[kykQ ;g ifjokn fnukad 18&8&08 dks bl vk/kkj ij is'k fd;k fd ifjoknh us vizkFkhZ&2 }kjk fufeZr ,d eksckbZy lSV 5310 vkbZ ,e bZ vkbZ ua0 3586530&13259100 vizkFkhZ&1 ls 9800 :i;s esa tfj, fcy la0 2175 fnukad 13-1-08 dks [kjhnk ftldh ,d lky dh okjaVh FkhA ;g dgk x;k fd lSV vizsy ds rhljs lIrkg esa [kjkc gks x;k ] eksckbZy ckr djrs djrs can gks tkrk Fkk] ifjoknh us vizkFkhZ&1 dks lSV Bhd djus dk fuosnu fd;k ftlus vf/kd`r lfoZl lsaVj ls Bhd djokus dk dgk ftl ij ifjoknh rqjUr ogka x;k vkSj mUgksaus Bhd djuk dgdj lSV ykSVk fn;k ysfdu lSV Bhd ugha gqvk Fkk vkSj 10 feuV ls vf/kd yxkrkj ckr dh tkrh rks eksckbZy dh Ldzhu lQsn gksdj eksckbZy can gks tkrk Fkk] Ldzhu ds lkFk yxs E;wftd Iys;j o ehfM;k Iys;j ds cVuksa us Hkh dk;Z djuk can dj fn;k ifjoknh iqu% vizkFkhZ&2 ds lfoZl lsaVj ij x;k ftlus lSV vius ikl j[k fy;k vkSj tc ifjoknh lSV ysus x;k rks mlus dgk fd lSV Bhd dj fn;k gS ysfdu lSV iw.kZr% Bhd ugha gqvk Fkk fnukad 12-7-08 dks lSV [kjkc gks x;k ftl ij mlus iqu% lfoZl lsaVj ls lEidZ fd;k rks mlus f'kdk;r ntZ dj yh vkSj mlds lSV dk eseksjh dkMZ fudkydj vius ikl j[k fy;k vkSj lSV lgh djus ds fy, 1500 :i;s ekaxs tcfd lSV okjaVh esa [kjkc gqvk Fkk blfy, ifjoknh fu'kqYd fjis;j djokus dk vf/kdkjh gSA bls lsok esa deh crkrs gq, ifjoknh us eksckbZy lSV Bhd djokdj eseksjh dkMZ lfgr okfil fnyokus vFkok fodYi esa cnydj u;k fnyokus vFkok mldh dher 9800 :i;s fnyokus ds lkFk ekufld ijs'kkuh ds fy, 20000 :i;s vkSj ifjon [kpZ 2100 :i;s fnyokus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA



2& vizkFkhZ&1 dh vksj ls ifjokn dk tokc is'k dj dfFkr eksckbZy fodz; djuk Lohdkj fd;k gS ysfdu dgk gS fd mlus dksbZ okjaVh ugha nh] eksckby [kjhnus ds i'pkr ifjoknh us dHkh mlls lEidZ ugha fd;k vkSj u gh mlesa [kjkch ckcr lwpuk nh blfy, mldh lsok esa dksbZ deh ugha gSA vizkFkhZ&2 dh vksj ls ifjokn dk foLr`r tokc is'k dj crk;k gS fd ifjoknh fdlh vuqrks"k dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA muds vuqlkj lfoZl lsaVj ij eksckbZy 18-6-08 dks fLop vkWQ QkYV dh f'kdk;r ds lkFk izkIr gqvk Fkk ftldks fjis;j djds mlh fnu ykSVk fn;k x;k Fkk blds ckn vU; [kjkch ds fy, lSV lfoZl lsaVj ij vk;k ftldh tkap esa ik;k fd lSV fyfDoM Msest Fkk blfy, ifjoknh ls mldk fjis;j pktZ ekaxk x;k ftl ij mlus bUdkj dj fn;kA ifjoknh us vizkFkhZx.k dks gSjku vksj ijs'kku djus ds fy, ;g >wBk ifjokn is'k fd;k gSA ;g Hkh dgk fd lsV fyfeVSM okjaVh esa fodz; fd, tkrs gSa vkSj fyfDoM Msest okjaVh esa doj ugha gksrk blfy, mudh lsok esa dksbZ deh ugha gSA


3& cgl lquh xbZA ifjoknh ds ;ksX; vf/koDrk dh nyhy gS fd ifjoknh us vizkFkhZ&2 }kjk fufeZr ,d eksckbZy lSV uksfd;k&5310 vizkFkhZ&1 ls 9800 :i;s esa tfj, fcy la0 2175 fnukad 13-1-08 dks [kjhnk ftldh ,d lky dh okjaVh FkhA mDr lSV vizsy ds rhljs lIrkg esa [kjkc gks x;k vkSj ckr djrs djrs can gks tkrk Fkk ftl ij ifjoknh us vizkFkhZ&1 dks lSV Bhd djus dk fuosnu fd;k ftlus vf/kd`r lfoZl lsaVj ls Bhd djokus dk dgkA ifjoknh rqjUr ogka x;k vkSj mUgksaus Bhd djuk dgdj lSV ykSVk fn;k ysfdu lSV Bhd ugha gqvk Fkk vkSj 10 feuV ls vf/kd yxkrkj ckr dh tkrh rks eksckbZy dh Ldzhu lQsn gksdj eksckbZy can gks tkrk Fkk] Ldzhu ds lkFk yxs E;wftd Iys;j o ehfM;k Iys;j ds cVuksa us Hkh dk;Z djuk can dj fn;k ifjoknh iqu% vizkFkhZ&2 ds lfoZl lsaVj ij x;k ftlus lSV vius ikl j[k fy;k vkSj tc ifjoknh lSV ysus x;k rks mlus dgk fd lSV Bhd dj fn;k gS ysfdu lSV iw.kZr% Bhd ugha gqvk Fkk fnukad 12-7-08 dks lSV [kjkc gks x;k ftl ij mlus iqu% lfoZl lsaVj ls lEidZ fd;k rks mlus f'kdk;r ntZ dj yh vkSj mlds lSV dk eseksjh dkMZ fudkydj vius ikl j[k fy;k vkSj lSV lgh djus ds fy, 1500 :i;s ekaxs tcfd lSV okjaVh esa [kjkc gqvk Fkk blfy, ifjoknh fu'kqYd fjis;j djokus dk vf/kdkjh gSA ;g lsok esa deh gS blfy, ifjoknh dks eksckbZy lSV Bhd djokdj eseksjh dkMZ lfgr okfil fnyok;k tkos vFkok fodYi esa cnydj u;k vFkok mldh dher 9800 :i;s fnyokbZ tkos lkFk ekufld ijs'kkuh ds fy, 20000 :i;s vkSj ifjon [kpZ 2100 :i;s Hkh fnyok, tkosaA


4& ;ksX; vf/koDrk vizkFkhZ&1 dh nyhy gS fd mlus lsV vo'; cspk Fkk ysfdu okjUVh dEiuh dh gksrh gS blfy, mldh lsok esa dksbZ deh ugha gSA ;ksX; vf/koDrk vizkFkhZ&2 dh nyhy gS fd os ifjoknh dk iz'uxr eksckbZy lSV Bhd djokdj nsus ds fy, rS;kj gSa vkSj lsV fjis;j gksus ij i{kdkjksa ds e/; dksbZ fookn ugha jgrk blfy, ifjokn vLohdkj fd;k tkosA


5& geus rdksZa ij euu fd;k ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA


6& tgka rd ifjoknh ds miHkksDrk gksus dk iz'u gS] vizkFkhZx.k us bls pqukSrh ugha nh gSA ifjoknh us vizkFkhZ&2 }kjk fufeZr ,d eksckbZy lSV uksfd;k&5310 vizkFkhZ&1 ls 9800 :i;s esa tfj, fcy la0 2175 fnukad 13-1-08 dks [kjhnk gS blfy, ifjoknh fuf'pr :i ls vizkFkhZx.k dk miHkksDrk gSA


7& tgka rd lsok esa deh dk iz'u gS] vizkFkhZ&2 ifjoknh ds [kjkc eksckbZy lSV dks Bhd djokus dks rS;kj gSA ifjoknh dks bl ij dksbZ ,rjkt ugha gS blfy, gekjh jk; esa eksckbZy Bhd gksus ij i{kdkjksa ds e/; fookn lekIr gks tk,xk blfy, bl ifjokn dks bl izdkj fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd vizkFkhZx.k ifjoknh dk dfFkr eksckby lSV fu'kqYd fjis;j djkds nsosa] eksckbZy lSV Bhd ugha gksus ij vizkFkhZx.k bl lSV ds cnys blh esd o DokfyfV dk u;k o nks"kjfgr lSV vFkok mldh dher 9800 :i;s vnk djsaxsA blh vuq:i ifjokn Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA
&% vkns'k %&


8& ifj.kker% ifjoknh dk ;g ifjokn fo:) vizkFkhZx.k Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS vkSj vizkFkhZx.k dks vkns'k gS fd os ifjoknh dk eksckbZy lSV uksfd;k 5310 vkbZ ,e bZ vkbZ ua0 3586530&13259100 fu'kqYd fjis;j djds nsosaA ifjoknh vkns'k ds 15 fnol esa viuk [kjkc eksckbZy lSV vizkFkhZ&1 dks lkSaisxk ftls vizkFkhZx.k vkxkeh ,d ekg esa fu'kqYd fjis;j djds nsaxsA ,d ekg esa fjis;j djds ugha nsus ij ifjoknh bl lSV ds cnys blh esd o DokfyfV dk u;k o nks"kjfgr lSV izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA lSV cnydj ugha nsus ij ifjoknh bldh dher 9800 :i;s izkIr djsxkA izdj.k ds rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa i{kdkjku viuk&viuk [kpkZ ogu djsaxsA


¼nqxkZ 'kekZ½
lnL;
¼fot; xks;y½
lnL;




¼vk'kdj.k iztkir½
v/;{k
9& fu.kZ; vkt fnukad 30-3-09 dks ljs btykl fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;kA



¼nqxkZ 'kekZ½
lnL;
¼fot; xks;y½
lnL;
¼vk'kdj.k iztkir½
v/;{k



&&&000&&&
«134567

Comments

  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE

    No.845, 10th Main, New Kantharaj Urs Road, G.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagar, Mysore - 570 009

    consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/5

    Sri. Kumar,
    ...........Appellant(s)
    Vs.

    M/s Sangeetha,

    M/s Revann's Nokia Care.
    ...........Respondent(s)

    BEFORE:
    1. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi
    2. Sri D.Krishnappa


    ORDER


    Complainant Sri. Kumar, S/o Arabalaiah, R/at No.EWS 108, I stage, Kuvempunagar, Mysore. (By Sudarshan .V, Advocate)


    Vs.

    Opposite Party

    1. The Manager, M/s Sangeetha, Dealers in Mobile and Mysore Electrical and Electronic Items, # 980, Panchamantra Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysore.

    2. Proprietor, M/s Revanna’s Nokia Care, New Kantharaj Urs Road, Mysore. ( Exparte) Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service

    Date of filing of complaint : 05-01-2009

    Date of appearance of O.P. : - Date of order : 05-03-2009

    Duration of Proceeding : - PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Sri.D.Krishnappa, President 1. The grievance of the complainant in brief is, that he on 20.06.2008 visited the shop of the first opposite party who had displayed a board in front of his shop, offering gift hampers of Kodak camera 4 stroke and DVD player to the customers who purchase the goods worth of Rs. 13,000/-. That he on that day purchased a Nokia company, 6500 slider model mobile phone by paying Rs.13,514/-.

    Then he demanded for giving gift hamper for which the first opposite party issued an acknowledgement assuring to deliver the gift hamper after informing him. But, thereafter the first opposite party failed to deliver the gift hamper. In the mean time the mobile phone he had purchased, developed some defects and thus handed over it to the first opposite party for repair. It was returned to him after repair. Again on 08.09.2008 when problem persisted he again gave that mobile phone to the first opposite party who in turn forwarded it to the second opposite party which is the service centre for repair, but the opposite parties have failed to return the hand set till day.


    2. Considering the grievance of the complainant, notice was ordered to the first opposite party only who is duly served with the notice, but he has remained absent is set exparte.


    3. The complainant in the course of enquiry into the complaint filed his affidavit evidence reproducing what has been stated by him in his complaint. He has also produced the bill under which he purchased the mobile set, an acknowledgement said to had been issued by the first opposite party for giving gift hamper and the job card for having given the mobile phone for repair to the first opposite party and in turn to second opposite party.



    4. Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the records.



    5. On perusal of the compliant averments, affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents he has produced reveal that the complainant on 20.06.2008 purchased a mobile phone from the first opposite party for Rs.13,514/-. But, the complainant have not produced the documents and not invited our attention to any of the publicity or article of the first opposite party in he having had offered gift hamper for having purchased article worth Rs.13,000/- and above. However the complainant has produced an acknowledgement said to have been issued by the first opposite party. Firstly this acknowledgement is not in any letter head or documents of the first opposite party undertaking assuring to give gift hamper to the complainant. Even the content of this acknowledgement do not say any where in this the first opposite party having had offered to give gift hamper. Therefore it is clear that the complainant has not placed any acceptable material in this first opposite party having had agreed or offered a gift hamper to the complainant in he having had purchased a mobile phone worth more than Rs. 13,000/- as such we do not find any substance in the complainant that the opposite party has offered a gift hamper to the complainant for having purchased a mobile set and the first opposite party latter has failed to honour it.


    6. Coming to the deficiency in the service of the first opposite party in he having had not returned the mobile phone after necessary service which was handed over to him. The complainant has produced a job card issued by the second opposite party in name of the complainant, but the grievance of the complainant reveal that this complaint had entrusted the defective mobile set to the first opposite party who in turn has given it for service. Therefore admittedly there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the second opposite party, thus the first opposite party is alone is accountable to this complainant and that the second opposite party if at all is accountable only to the first opposite party and not to this complainant. This job card disclose that the mobile telephone of complainant was forwarded to second opposite party for necessary repair and service and it was to be redelivered to the complainant after required repair and service through second opposite party. The sworn statement of the complainant that the first opposite party has not returned his mobile phone has remained uncontroverted and unrebutted.

    The first opposite party was given an opportunity by this forum by serving notice of the complaint has not availed the opportunity to oppose the claim of the complainant, under these circumstances we find no reasons to disbelieve the grievance of the complainant, as such the complaint deserves to be allowed in part and we pass the following order.


    ORDER 1. Complaint is allowed in part.

    2. The opposite parties No.1 is directed to return the mobile phone of the complainant after its effective repair within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the first opposite party is directed to refund Rs.13,514/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of receipt of this order till the date of payment. 3. The first opposite party shall also pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009

    IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN

    No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020

    consumer case(CC) No. CC/428/2009

    Kanish Kumar Gupta
    ...........Appellant(s)
    Vs.

    NOKIA Care

    Hotspots Retails Ltd.,
    ...........Respondent(s)


    ORDER


    Order dated 16.03.2009

    ORDER

    After first round of calling of the cases, later on the complainant came and was present before the forum. The representative of opposite party

    No. 1 was also present. He filed a memo as under: “Respected Sir, As per the case No. CC428/2009 of complaint given by Mr. Kanish Kumar has given the handset model 6210 bearing IMEI No. 354199020222537 which has been swapped from higher level repair. We apologies for the delay. I have got the swap handset now bearing IMEI No. 354199020507127 which I would like to handover to the customer. Kindly instruct the customer accordingly, Thanking you, Yours truly, For Mobile Care” The complainant who was present before the forum received the new handset from the representative of opposite party No. 1. The complainant also claimed in his complaint replacement of handset with new piece.


    In view of giving of new piece by opposite party No. 1 the prayer of the complainant has been met with. The only grievance of the complainant is he has spent money for filing complaint and he has wasted his working days to enquire the status of repair of handset and it was troublesome job for him to enquire again and again the status of repair. It gave him mental tension. Therefore, the complainant submitted that a reasonable amount towards cost and expenses be awarded. He also wanted warranty card.


    The representative of opposite party No. 1 submitted that already complainant had been given warranty card and that warranty card will hold good and opposite party No. 1 has no authority to give fresh warranty card. Complainant also submitted that he has got warranty card which had been given to him at the time of purchase of handset in the month of September 2008.

    Opposite party No. 1 representative submitted that the Nokia Company has to give costs of litigation. Opposite party No. 1 is only a service centre working for the company.

    Opposite party No. 1 has given address of the Nokia Company. Complainant has not made Nokia (India) Pvt. Ltd. as party to the present proceedings. Therefore, in the absence of making company as party to the proceedings again it will be difficult for this forum to direct the company to pay the cost and compensation for mental agony, harassment etc.

    Since the complainant has got relief of replacement of handset his request for cost and compensation is not liable to be considered in this complaint as the complainant has not made Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. as party to the present case. However, it is open to the complainant to file a complaint against Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. seeking cost and compensation. The disposal of this complaint will not come in the way of complainant proceeding against Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. If the complainant is so advised he can file complaint against the company or he can make representation directly to the Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. asking for costs and compensation. With this observation since the matter is settled and the complainant having received new handset the present complaint deserves to be closed.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    [FONT=&quot]Complainant:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Savitha,[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]D/o N.V.Ramu,[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Aged about 31 years,[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]No:818, I floor, Narmada nadhi road,[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Pipelane, Srinagar, [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]BANGALORE[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] /vs/[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Opposite parties: [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1. M/s.Devendra Telecom[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] No:329, GVS Complex[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] 10th A Main road,3rd Blcok[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] OPP: Cosmopolitan club[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Jayanagar[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Bangalore – 11[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]2. Nokia Manufacturing Unit,[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Sipcot Industrial estate,[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] In Sriperumbudur, [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Near Chennai,[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Rep.By its Manager[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] O R D E R [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]SRI.G.SIDDANAGOUD., PRESIDENT., [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the Opposite parties for the refund of an amount of Rs.3,050/- with interest, compensation of Rs.10,000/-, costs of Rs.5,000/- and for such other reliefs.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The brief facts of the case are that the complainant along with her husband visited exclusive Mobile showroom M/s. Devendra Telecom , near Jayanagar for purchase of NOKIA mobile set for the personal use and to keep in touch with her parents and her husband and taken a connection from BSNL bearing Mobile No: 9480504215,. On 28-10-2008 around 7.00 PM visited the above showroom impressed with the various features earmarked and purchased NOKIA Mobile model No:2600 C bearing No:356396020796050 from the 1st OP vide Invoice No: SI/3BN/5015 on paying the full cash amount of Rs.3,050/- (Rs. Three thousand fifty only ). Which was being manufactured by the 2nd Opposite party. After purchasing the said mobile set and her BSNL sim was given to the OP 1 sales man to insert the same in the mobile and the sim was inserted in the mobile. As it was late in the evening on 28.10.2008 in the OP1 showroom and left to the house. The next day morning when she operated the said set, it was getting switched off and on observing the said mobile instrument, it was found that the back portion of the said instrument was faulty and it was getting automatically opened off. Even on receiving the calls it was getting switched off due to faulty closing of the said instrument. She was very much shocked and underwent mental agony since the purchase of the said instrument. Immediately, on 29.10.2008 the next day evening visited the office of the Op 1 and requested the OP 1 to replace the said set with new one as it is a faulty and it is having manufacturing defects. The OP 1 directly informed us that there might be a mistake in the set and further told that they are unable to replace the said instrument as login had been over. After some time with the inspection of the said instrument the OP 1 informed to hand over the set for repair and asked to come after THREE DAYS or at the latest by ONE WEEK to get back the said mobile instrument after set righting it. After some time, again she requested to the OP 1 for replace the mobile instrument immediately, he never listened to the words of their request, they were shocked and annoyed that on purchasing a new instrument on 28.10.2008 and visited the very next day for the replacement and even it is not used for a single day and OP 1 is telling with rash and negligent manners, she was helpless.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] When visited first time to purchase the mobile instrument, they were very much pleased and when they visited with a problem, they were never pleased and reply was very much arrogant. This clearly shows the negligent attitude towards the customers. The said new instrument is of no use, as it is found having several defects like the instrument was automatically getting switched off and unable to store any data, and even on receipt of the incoming calls the connection automatically gets cut off due to not coinciding with front and back portion of the said defective mobile. Even if at all, the back portion of the said instrument is pressed lightly, the incoming or outgoing calls can be attended. And finally to do outgoing calls it is very much difficult and when they press the keys of the numbers feeble sound of pressing is listened and the entire back portion of the said instrument doesn’t coincides with the front portion. The act and attitude on the part of the 1st OP, shows that they have played an unfair trade practice over and making herself and her husband moving up and down with regard to the above said instrument. Even till today the said set is of no use and not even single day it is used and this shows that there is a manufacturing defect in the production of the said mobile phone. Hence the complainant approached.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Op1 appeared personally, Op2 appeared through its counsel. After the appearance of the Ops, sufficient time has been granted to the Ops to file their version and affidavit. But in spite of sufficient time granted, both Ops neither appeared nor filed their version and affidavit. Complainant gave her evidence by way of affidavit. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for complainant. On the date of arguments also none of the Ops appeared and submitted their arguments. Hence the case is posted for orders. Permitting both the Ops to submit their written arguments if any, within 3 days.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The complainant specifically on oath stated about the purchase of mobile set on 28/10/2008 for Rs.3,050/-. Receipt produced by the complainant completely corroborates the evidence of the complainant. The complainant also submitted on oath about the defects in the set on the very next day and visiting all the Ops on several occasions from the date of its purchase. When the complainant has brought it to the knowledge of the Ops about the defects in the mobile on the very next day of its purchase, it is the bounden duty of the OPs to rectify the same or to replace it or to refund the amount but the Ops made the complainant to visit the shop on every day for the payment of the amount. But the Ops never bothered either to replace the mobile set or to refund the amount. The complainant has purchased the mobile set with the hope of getting the benefit out of it without any trouble. But on the very next day itself she found it not functioning and even today it has become a useless set. This sort of an act on the part of the Ops definitely amounts to deficiency in service.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]These facts have not been specifically denied by the Ops, even though the Ops are appeared before this forum. In spite of sufficient opportunities given to them, they failed to submit their statement of objection and evidence to rebut the evidence of the complainant. They never bothered to appear before this forum to submit their arguments also. In the absence of specific denial by the Ops, the evidence given by the complainant is unchallenged and uncontroverted.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Accordingly, we pass the following order.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]O R D E R[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,050/- (Rupees Three Thousand Fifty only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of its purchase to till the date of realization.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant towards the cost of this litigation.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Complainant is directed to hand over the mobile set to the Opposite parties at the time of receiving the amount.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    Sh. Prem Chand son of late Sh.Shiv Ram resident of village Jalaura, Post Office Shirar, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. ..Complainant.

    V/S

    1.Nag Ji Communication near Post Office Akhara bazar Kullu, H.P.
    2.Nokia Care Centre, through Gupta Communication Dhalpur, Kullu, H.P.
    ..Opposite parties

    For the complainant Sh. Vishwajit Katoch, Advocate Opposite parties Exparte

    Complaint under Section 12 of the
    Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    ORDER.


    This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
    ( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite parties. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile set of Nokia make , Model – 6233 bearing IMIE No.356283017774631 with coloured screen display and Camera from the opposite party No.1 vide bill No.2820 dated 27-11-2007 in the sum of Rs.8100/- .

    The complainant had kept the mobile very safely . It is alleged that within a week of purchase of the mobile handset, the same started giving problems and initially the Keypad and the Camera did not function properly .


    The complainant had brought this fact to the notice of the opposite party No.1 within 15 days of the purchase of the mobile hand set in question and requested the opposite party No.1 to repair the defect or change the mobile set but he was told that he was not responsible for the defect and was directed to contact Nokia Care agent .


    The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 at Kullu and apprised about the defects in the mobile . The opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that they will get the defect repaired or will get the hand set replaced by the agent of the company as soon as possible and on his assurance the hand set was retained by the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 kept the mobile set for 15 days and gave the mobile phone back after getting the same repaired. Thereafter the complainant used the mobile set for about 10/12 days but again same fault developed . The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and requested him to change the mobile set . The opposite party No.2 again took the phone from the complainant and assured him that they will get the phone changed . The opposite party No.2 kept the mobile for about two months and after repeated requests and visits, the mobile was repaired . The mobile set worked for some days and the same problem occurred for third time. Besides this, the software of the mobile phone also got corrupted on 31-10-2008. The complainant went to the shop of the opposite party No.2 third time and left the mobile set for repair/ replacement . The opposite party No.2 issued service job sheet card dated 31-10-2008 and assured the complainant that the phone will be replaced but despite telephonic calls and several visits neither mobile set was repaired nor replaced the set due to which the complainant is suffering inconvenience .On these grounds, the complainant had sought a direction to the opposite parties to replace the hand set with new one or to return the price of the hand set and also to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation.


    2. The opposite parties were duly served but failed to contest the complaint and were proceeded against exparte .



    3. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Nokia mobile phone of model No.6233 bearing IMIE No.356283017774631 with coloured screen display and Camera from the opposite party No.1 vide bill No.2820 dated 27-11-2007 in the sum of Rs.8100/- but the same developed problems within 15 days from its purchase and its keypad and camera did not function properly . The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and apprised the above defect but he was advised to approach Nokia Care agent. The complainant visited the opposite party No.2 and the set was retained by it. The set was repaired twice , but it did not function properly and lastly on 31-10-2008 the complainant deposited the set with the opposite party No.2 and he was issued service job sheet dated 31-10-2008 and was assured that the set would be replaced but the same had neither been replaced nor returned till the filing of the complaint. In order to strengthen his case, the complainant had adduced in evidence original retail invoice issued by the opposite party No.1 which depicts that the complainant had purchased a mobile set of Nokia make mode 6233 on 27-11-2007 in the sum of Rs.8100/-.Apart from this the complainant had also placed on record original job sheet dated 31-10-2008 issued by Divyam Communications which shows that the mobile hand set of the complainant was not working properly .


    The defect indicated in the service job card was camera not working ( camera is totally black) . In the column “ Additional Faults and Actions comments : it had been written that the set has been repaired three times Not only this, the complainant has also filed his own affidavit by way of evidence .The opposite parties have failed to contest the complaint and were proceeded against exparte which shows that they have nothing to say in the matter except to admit the averments made in the complaint. As discussed above, the opposite parties have not contested the complaint , therefore , we have no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant which is duly supported by means of affidavit that the set is defective one and the opposite parties have failed to repair it. The complainant has proved that the set in question has been purchased by him from the opposite party No.1. Therefore , we hold that the opposite party No.1 is liable to replace the set with new one and also to compensate the complainant on account of harassment suffered by the complainant .



    4 In view of above discussion , the complaint is allowed and the opposite party No.1 is directed either to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant or refund its price i.e. Rs.8100/- within one month from today failing which to pay Rs.50/- per day as penalty till the realization of the amount . The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1000/- on account of compensation for harassment and Rs.500/- as costs of complaint.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    ORDER

    ORDER DELIVERED BY Shri. R.G. PATIL, PRESIDENT ORDER DELIVERED BY Shri. R.G. PATIL, PRESIDENT



    1)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]This is a complaint praying to direct the OPs to replace the mobile handset Nokia-6070 with a new one or to refund the cost of the handset of Rs.3600-00 and to pay to the complainant Rs.2000-00 towards mental agony, Rs 1000-00 towards expenses and Rs. 1000-00 towards costs.
    [FONT=&quot]2)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]Brief facts of the complaint are that, the complainant on [/FONT][FONT=&quot]18-2-2008[/FONT][FONT=&quot] purchased a Nokia mobile handset 6070 a product of OP-2, from the OP-1 for Rs 3,600-00. After 3 days while talking it started disturbance of irritating sound. The complainant, on the advice of the OP-1,contacted the service center who returned it saying it is repaired but without repairs. Again after 20 days he contacted the OP-1. Stating that he would get it repaired from the service center kept the set with him. After 15 days he returned it saying that it was repaired. Again the same problem continued. Again the complainant on the advice of OP-1 left the set with him. After one month it was returned stating that it was repaired but was not. The complainant many times requested the OP-1 either to get it repaired or to replace the set. The OPs turned negligent. There is deficiency of service by the OPs and they are liable.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]3) The OP-1 filed WS stating that he being a seller is not liable for the repairs of any defects but the OP-2 is liable. The complainant has got it repaired from an unauthorized local repairer for which the OP-1 is not responsible. He prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]4)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]The OP-2 filed WS stating that the contention that the complainant has purchased the Nokia handset and it started giving trouble are not within its knowledge. The contention of the OP-1 is not correct. The complainant ought to have prayed for repairs, if not possible replacement. The complainant has not produced any material for his claim and he is not entitled for any damages. He prays to dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]5)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]The complainant has filed his affidavit and got marked Ex.C-1 to C-2 and MO-1 to MO-3. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]6)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]The point that arises for our consideration is “Whether there is deficiency of service by the OP ?”[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]7)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]The counsel for the complainant averred that the mobile set is purchased from the OP-1 who is the dealer and he has issued the warranty for the set. The set could not be repaired even after many attempts. The OPs are responsible for selling the defective goods to the complainant. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]8)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]It is contented by the counsel for the OP-1 that the OP-1 being a seller is not responsible for any defect in the set. The OP-2 is responsible. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]9)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]The counsel for the OP-2 averred that the contention that the complainant has purchased the Nokia handset and it started giving trouble is not within the knowledge of OP-2. The contention of the OP-1 that the OP-2 is liable is not correct. The complainant ought to have prayed for repairs, if not possible replacement. The complainant has not produced any material for his claim and he is not entitled for any damages. He prays to dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]10)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]We have gone through the pleadings and documents. The Ex.C-1 shows that the mobile set is purchased by the complainant from the OP-1 and the OPs have not denied that it was defective. The OP-1 denies his liability on the ground that he is a seller of the handset. But he being a seller is also liable for selling the defective set. The new set is purchased to utilize it without any problem. The OPs had either to repair the set to the satisfaction of the complainant or replace it. Instead they deny the facts of purchase and the defects. It is the deficiency of service by the OPs. The complainant has deposited the set and accessories in the Forum. The OPs have not sought for expert’s test. The complainant has sought for the replacement of the set or refund of the price amount of Rs.3,600-00. Under the circumstances if we direct the OPs to replace the set with new one or to refund the amount of Rs.3,600-00 with interest @ 10 p.a. from 18-02-2008 till realization and to pay cost of Rs.1,000-00, it would be justifiable. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]We pass the following Order.[/FONT]
    : O R D E R :

    The complaint is allowed. The OPs are directed to replace the set with new one or to refund the amount of Rs.3,600-00 (Rs.Three thousand six hundred only) with interest @ 10 p.a. from 18-02-2008 till realization and pay cost of Rs.1000-00 (Rs.One thousand only) to the complainant.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    COMPLAINT NO. 215 OF 2009

    Omkar Murthy .G
    S/o Gurusiddappa,
    A/a 30 yrs,
    R/at No.20, Harokethanahalli
    Village, Makali Post,
    Dasanapura Hobli,
    BangaloreNorth Taluk.
    …. Complainant.
    V/s

    01. S.S.G.Mobiles Pvt. Ltd(BIG C)
    Branch Office at $204, 205,
    Sampige Road, next to Halli
    Mane Hotel, Malleshwaram,
    Bangalore – 560 003.
    (DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED)

    02. Nokia Care
    BRIGHTCAREE
    #25/1, Srikanta Mahal,
    1st Floor,, 1st Cross,
    Sampige Road,
    Malleshwaram, Bangalore – 003.
    …. Opposite Parties
    -: ORDER:-
    This complaint is for a direction to the Opposite Parties to replace the Mobile Hand-Set purchased by the complainant with a new one and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-.


    2.
    The case of the complainant is as under:-
    The complainant who is a practicing Advocate purchased NOKIA Mobile Hand-Set on 06.10.2008 from Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.4,450/-. From the date of purchase itself, there was total failure of connecting Head –Set to the Mobile Hand-Set and the performance of the Hand-Set was also not proper. The said matter was complained to Opposite Party No.2 who received the Hand-Set 17.11.2008 with assurance to get it repaired within two days. In spite of visiting the service center of Opposite Party No.2 several times, the Hand-Set was not repaired and he was requested to come after two days. On 29.11.2008 the Opposite Party No.2 informed that the Hand-Set has been sent to the Head Office and asked to come after a week. Thereafter Opposite Party No.2 promised to get the Hand-Set replaced with a new one. But Opposite Party No.2 failed to return the Hand-Set duly repaired or to replace it with a new Hand-Set, though the complainant visited the service center more than 10 times. He issued legal notice dated:11.12.2008 calling upon the Opposite Parties to replace the Hand-Set with a new one, but the Opposite Parties did not give any reply. By the act of the Opposite Parties, the complainant was subjected to mental agony, harassment, hardship and pain and therefore entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, the complaint.



    3.
    On service of notice, Opposite Party No.2 appeared before the Forum on 02.03.2009, but on the subsequent dates, he remained absent and thus failed to file the version and to participate in the proceedings. The complainant had also impleaded the Firm from which he had purchased the Mobile Hand-Set as Opposite Party No.1 Subsequently, he filed a memo to dismiss the complaint as against Opposite Party No.1. Accordingly, on 13.03.2009 the complaint against Opposite Party No.1 has been dismissed as not pressed. In support of the claim, the complainant has filed his affidavit and has produced copies of documents. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.




    4.
    The points for consideration are:-
    1.Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2?

    2.
    Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?




    5.
    Our findings are:-
    Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
    Point No.2 : As per final order
    for the following:-



    -:REASONS:-



    6.
    From the copy of the service Job Sheet dated:17.11.2008 it is seen that the complainant handed over the Mobile Hand Set to Opposite Party No.2 for effecting repairs. This document supports the contention of the complainant that since the Mobile Head-Set was not connecting to the Hand-Set and the performance of the Hand-Set was also not proper, he handed over the Hand-Set to Opposite Party No.2 on 17.11.2008 for effecting repairs. Since Opposite Party No.2 has failed to file the version and remained absent on subsequent dates of hearing. The contention of the complainant that at some point of time, Opposite Party No.2 had promised to get the Hand-Set replaced with a new one has also remained unchallenged. Thus, the fact remains that though the Hand-Set was handed over to Opposite Party No.2 on 17.11.2008 for effecting repairs, the same was not returned to the complainant even as on 24.01.2009 – the date of the complaint. This delay on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 itself amounts to deficiency in service.

    Though the complainant has prayed for a direction to Opposite Party No.2 to replace the Mobile Hand-Set itself with a new Hand-Set, the manufacture of the hand-Set is not impleaded as party. Admittedly Opposite Party No.2 is only a service center authorized by the manufacture. If at all there is any manufacturing defect and the same could not be rectified, it is the manufacturer who becomes liable to replace the defective Hand-Set with a new one. But such a direction cannot be given against the authorized service center.

    In the Job Sheet dated:17.11.2008 also the complaint regarding performance of the Hand-Set is recorded as “UNABLE TO CONNECT HEAD-SET”. When Opposite Party No.2 received the Hand-Set on 17.11.2008 it was required to return the Hand-Set duly repaired within reasonable time. Opposite Party No.2 failed to return the Hand-Set for about three months and thereby subjected the complainant to mental agony and inconvenience and as such for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered, the complainant needs to be compensated. However, in our opinion the compensation of Rs.50,000/- claimed by the complainant is on the higher side.


    In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion it is just and sufficient if the complainant is awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/-. In the result, we pass the following:-



    -:ORDER:-
    • The complaint is ALLOWED.
    • The Opposite Party is directed to deliver back the Mobile Hand-Set of the complainant duly repaired and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- inclusive of the costs of the proceedings to the complainant. Compliance of this order shall be made within eight weeks from the date of communication. If for any reasons, the Opposite Party No.2 fails to deliver back the Mobile Hand-Set duly repaired, it shall pay Rs.4,450/- - the cost of the Mobile Hand-Set to the complainant.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    Sri Sreevatsa S/o Sri G.B. Purohit,
    ...........Appellant(s)
    Vs.

    M/s.Nokia India Pvt., Ltd.,

    M/s. Global Access,

    M/s. Mobile Care,
    ...........Respondent(s)

    COMPLAINT NO: 424 OF 2009 Shri. Sreevatsa, S/o G.B. Purohit, Minor, Represented by his Natural Guardian, R/o Central Excise Quarters, L-Block, Door No.2, 38th Main, II Stage, BTM Layout, Bangalore-68. Complainant V/S 1. M/s Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Building No.A, BLF Phase-II, Fiber City, Fiber Green, Gurgaon-02 (Haryana) 2. M/s Global Access, Bangalore(Dealer), III Block, Jayanagar, Near Martial Arts Academy Besides S.B.I. ATM, Bangalore. 3. M/s Mobile Care, 808, 7th Cross, B.T.M. Layout, II Stage, Bangalore-560076. Opposite Parties ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale


    This is a complaint filed by the complainant. The complainant is a student and he has purchased a mobile set Nokia on 19/02/2008 for Rs.9,900/-. Complainant experienced certain defects in the smooth functioning of the Nokia Mobile Set and approached opposite party No.3 on several occasions for getting defects set right. Opposite party No.3 is the authorized center.

    Opposite party No.3 informed that handset is beyond repairs and he will get replacement of the said handset by new one. The complainant had approached the opposite party No.3 several times.

    Being aggrieved by the lethargic attitude of opposite parties, complainant issued legal notice. Notice has been served. Complainant is put to untold hardship and pecuniary loss on account of nonfunctioning of the mobile set purchased from opposite party No.2.

    The opposite party No.3 promised that they will arrange for providing new brand box piece of the same value of the original. But the opposite parties did not agree to reimburse the full value of the mobile set. Complainant in order to settle the dispute out of Court, issued one more legal notice to the opposite parties but no reply has been received.

    The complainant prayed for reimbursement of full cost of the original handset and compensation and cost. Hence, the complaint. 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties.

    Notice was served on opposite party No.2 and 3. Opposite party No.2 has not appeared before this Forum in spite of service of notice by RPAD. Therefore, opposite party No.2 was placed exparte.

    The representative of opposite party No.3 appeared and he submitted that mobile set is with the opposite party No.3 and company is ready to replace with a new brand set. The complainant insisted for refund of the amount. Complainant was not ready to take the replacement since the complainant submitted that he has already purchased another mobile set. Therefore, he is not in need of any mobile set. The complainant has produced copy of legal notice and he also produced tax invoice of opposite party No.2. As per the tax invoice the complainant has purchased mobile phone for Rs.9,900/- on 19/02/2008.


    The complainant has also produced service job sheets and on the facts stated by the complainant in his affidavit, it is clear that the handset purchased by the complainant is defective one. He has handed over the mobile set to opposite party No.2 for repairs. But opposite party No.3 submitted that complainant is ready to replace the set with a new brand mobile set in place of old set. The complainant is not ready to accept the offer.


    The complainant is demanded for refund of the amount since he has already purchased another mobile set. So, under these circumstances, it would be just, fair and reasonable to direct the opposite parties to refund the amount. Opposite party No.2 is the dealer and opposite party No.3 is the service center. Opposite party No.1 is the Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.,.


    The mobile set is with opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 has not filed defence version and opposite party No.2 though served with notice has not appeared before this Forum and contested the matter. Opposite party No. 2 even has not sent defence version by post.


    Therefore, whatever the facts stated by the complainant in his complaint have gone unchallenged and there are no reasons to disbelieve the facts stated by the complainant. Complainant is a student studying in second year PUC. He has been put to unnecessary harassment and mental agony since the mobile phone purchased by him found to be defective.



    It is the duty and obligation and commitment of the service providers to supply defect free goods to the customers. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interest of the consumers. The complainant being a consumer under the definition of the Consumer Protection Act, his rights requires to be protected. The complainant demanded for refund of the amount. His request requires to be accepted as just, fair and reasonable. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-


    ORDER



    3. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.9,900/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non compliance of the order within 30 days the said amount carries interest at 12% p.a from date of this order till payment/realisation.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    ORDER


    1.(a) This Complaint is filed on 07/01/2009 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    The Complaint in brief, is as hereunder;

    (b) The Opposite Party No.1 is the Manufacturing Company of Nokia Mobile Phones (hereafter OP-Company).


    The Opposite Party No.2 is a Dealer of Nokia Mobile Phones manufactured by the Opposite Party Company. On 14/01/2008, he visited the 2nd Opposite Party-Dealer (hereafter OP-Dealer) to purchase a Mobile Phone of the Opposite Party-Company.

    One Manish Jain was therein that shop.

    He recommended a Mobile Handset bearing No.Nokia-6080 Silver. Accordingly, it was bought for a sum of Rs.3,900/- as per the Bill/Tax Invoice No.6260, dt:14/01/2008. After purchase of that Mobile Phone, it did not work satisfactorily even for a month. Several defects including manufacturing defects became visible in that Mobile Handset. While operation, it was being frequently disconnected and while in conversation, some times the conversant was not heard.


    Some times all incoming and out going calls could not be connected on both ends. Some times there was no proper display in the screen. There was problem in the sound system also. The keypad remand defective. On 5/5/2008, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party-Dealer with the above grievance.
    The Opposite Party-Dealer promised to provide service to the said Mobile Handset but, refused to refund the consideration. The Dealer received the Mobile Handset with the battery for service by making an endorsement on the backside of that Tax Invoice itself and assuring that the Mobile Handset would be set-right within one week.


    However, nothing positive was turned out. Surprisingly, the Opposite Party-Dealer did not return that Mobile Handset to the Complainant inspite of requests. The Opposite Party Company had provided warranty to that Mobile Handset for a period of One year. In the circumstances, having no other option, the Complainant caused a Legal Notice to the Opposite Party-Company and also the Opposite Party-Dealer on 19/07/2008 through RPAD also calling upon them to compensate in a sum of Rs.10,000/- apart from returning the cost of that Mobile Handset in a sum of Rs.3,900/-.


    The Opposite Party-Company did not respond to that Notice. But, the Opposite Party-Dealer responded denying the contents of that Legal Notice. Since, the Opposite Parties remained deficient in rendering services to the Complainant touching that Mobile Handset, the Complainant is put to sufferance and loss. Hence, this Complaint is necessitated to direct the Opposite Parties to return the cost of that Mobile Handset as claimed in the Legal notice along with the cost of this proceeding.


    (c) Along with the Complaint, the Complainant has made available a list with Seven Documents marking them at Annexures- A to J.


    2. (a) Though the Opposite Parties appeared through Counsel, no Version as such is made available by the Opposite Party- Company inspite of extending time from time to time. Ultimately, it was treated that the Opposite Party-Company have no Version in the case. The Opposite Party-Dealer have made available their Version in the beginning itself.

    (b) The substance of the Version of the Opposite Party-Dealer is as hereunder:

    (c) This Complaint is neither maintainable at law, nor on facts of the case. This Opposite Party is not a Dealer as such. However, this Opposite Party sells the goods of the 1st Opposite Party including Mobile phones. This Opposite Party is not the Manufacturer of the Mobile Handset bought by the Complainant from them. Wherefore, this Opposite Party is not answerable to the Complainant. If at all there is any defect in the said goods, it was for the 1st Opposite Party-Manufacturing Company to get the needful done. The allegations made against this Opposite Party are denied since false.


    This Opposite Party has not made any endorsement on the backside of the Tax Invoice as alleged by the Complainant. The warranty is maintained by the 1st Opposite Party-Manufacturing Company. No Mobile was delivered to this Opposite Party by the Complainant for repairs on 05/05/2008.

    At no point of time, the Complainant had approached this Opposite Party. It appears, the Complainant is trying to enrich himself by making false allegations. In the circumstances, there is no deficiency of service by this Opposite Party and as such, this very Complaint has to be dismissed with cost. (d) One Manish Jain has signed and verified that Version of the 2nd Opposite Party.


    3. Thereafter, the parties were called upon to produce their evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. Accordingly, the Complainant has produced his affidavit on 25/03/2009. For the 2nd Opposite Party that Manish Jain had sworn to an affidavit which is made available in evidence on 30/03/2009. For the Complainant, a list with the original documents at Annexures-A to J were made available on 25/03/2009 itself. At the end, this Forum heard on merits. 4. In the circumstances, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision in this Proceeding and they are;

    (i) Whether the allegation of deficiency of service made by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties is well-founded ?

    (ii) Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief in this case against the Opposite Parties ?

    (iii) What Order?


    5. Our Findings to these points are as hereunder: i) Yes, ii) Yes, iii) As per the operative portion of the Order here- below. 6. We shall strengthen our findings on the following:



    R E A S O N S POINT NO.1


    (a):- Nodoubt, the Learned Counsel representing the 2nd Opposite Party-Dealer had tried to impress upon this Forum that the 2nd Opposite Party is not a Dealer of the goods of the Opposite Party–Company and on the other hand, they only sell the goods of the Opposite Party-Company.

    There is least doubt as to the status of the 2nd Opposite Party in connection with the goods manufactured by the Opposite Party-Company and it can be safely concluded that the 2nd Opposite Party is one among the several Dealers of the goods of the Opposite Party-Company. In this regard, the very Annexure-A made available by the Complainant throws light. Annexure-A is the Original Tax Invoice dt.14/01/2008 bearing No.6260 issued by the 2nd Opposite Party-Dealer regarding the sale of Nokia-6080 Silver Mobile Handset for a sum of Rs.3,900/- to the Complainant.



    (b) Now, the grievance of the Complainant is that the said Mobile Handset became defective within a period of one month from the date of purchase and that he had to suffer a lot on account of the said defects which were not cured by the Opposite Parties. What are the defects so found in the said Mobile Handset, have been detailed by the Complainant in the Complaint itself. The Opposite Party No.2 admits, the Complainant so buying that Mobile Handset from them. Now the contention of the Complainant is that on 05/05/2008, he had lodged that defective Mobile Handset with the 2nd Opposite Party-Dealer with a request to get the defects removed or, to refund the amount so paid by him. Further, it is the contention of the Complainant that the 2nd Opposite Party refused to refund the amount but, agreed to get the defects removed and retained the same with them and never returned the same, thereafter even to this date. As stated supra, it is the contention of the 2nd Opposite Party that the Complainant never handed over that Mobile Handset to them for repairs either dt.05/05/2008 or, any other date. However, to probabilise that it was so handed over to the 2nd Opposite Party, the Complainant has placed reliance upon the entry made on the obverse of that Annexure-A Tax Invoice.

    There we find certain entries. According to the Complainant, that Mobile set was so received by that Manish Jain under his signature and entries so found include the signature of that Manish Jain and his Mobile numbers and also the description of the Mobile Handset so lodged. We find a recital therein to effect that the said Mobile Handset bearing No.6080 has been received by the signatory to it.



    According to the Complainant that Signatory is none other than that Manish Jain. Ofcourse, the 2nd Opposite Party has denied the genuineness of that signature. However, they remained silent as far as the correctness of the Mobile phone numbers mentioned therein. If those Mobile numbers did not pertain to that Manish Jain, certainly there could have been a denial in that regard by the 2nd Opposite Party. (c) That apart, it is the very case of the Complainant that, he was constrained to cause a Legal Notice to both the Opposite Parties for not removing the defects in the said Mobile Handset and for not delivering the same to him.


    According to the Complainant, said Notice has been caused to the Opposite Parties through RPAD and the Complainant has made available the postal receipts along with the postal acknowledgment of the 2nd Opposite Party in evidence here. A copy of that Legal Notice is at Annexure-C and those postal receipts are at Annexures-D, E & F and that postal acknowledgment of the 2nd Opposite Party is at Annexure-G. Significantly to the naked eyes, the signature found in that postal acknowledgement tallies with the signature found in that entry on the obverse of that Tax Invoice.

    It has to be seen that the signature at Annexure-G also had come into being at an undisputed point of time. In the circumstances, we have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the same. Moreover, it is not the case of the 2nd Opposite Party that they did not receive that Legal Notice at all. On the other hand, even according to them, they have caused a reply to that Legal Notice and infact the Complaint has made available that original reply dt.21/07/2008 which is at Annexure-J. Wherefore, the above circumstances would clearly go to show that the 2nd Opposite Party have received that defective Mobile Handset from the Complainant as contended by the Complainant. Nodoubt, the Learned Counsel representing the 2nd Opposite Party placing reliance upon the signature of Manish Jain found in the Vakalath and the Version and also in the affidavit contended that no reliance could be placed on the testimony of the Complainant regarding the genuine of the entries made on the obverse of that Tax Invoice at Annexure-A. Nodoubt, there is a sea change in the signatures. However, according to the Complainant, having realized the position, the 2nd Opposite Party must have thought of the way to wriggle out of the situation and putting the signature in a different mode is an attempt in that regard.

    To dispel the cloud the 2nd Opposite Party could have made available any document containing the signature of that Manish Jain which came into existence at an earlier point of time. Wherefore, having regard to the totality of facts, we have no reason to doubt the bonafides of the above contention of the Learned Counsel representing the Complaint. (d) Admittedly, there is a Warranty of twelve months to that Instrument and that Warranty is provided by the Opposite Party-Company as revealed in Annexure-B. Annexure-B is the Original Warranty Card issued by the Manufacturing Company touching the instrument in question. In the context, the Learned Counsel representing the 2nd Opposite Party strenuously tried to impress upon this Forum that there is no liability on them and the liability if any is that of the Manufacturing Company and not the Dealer. We do not find force in this contention. Under Law, the liability is joint and several for the reason that the Customer while buying the goods, sees only the Dealer and not the Manufacturer of goods so bought and if the Dealer is entitled to be reimbursed from the Manufacturer, the Dealer has every right to proceed against the Manufacturer of the goods and as far as the Customer is concerned, both are liable. In the light of that Legal position, the liability rests on both the Opposite Parties in this case.


    (e) Now, the conduct of the Manufacturing Company as 1st Opposite Party need be looked into. As contended by the Complainant, they have not chosen to cause any reply to that Legal Notice. Moreover, in this proceeding also, they have not chosen to produce their Version of the case if any, inspite of service of Notice. Wherefore, the very approach of the 1st Opposite Party-Manufacturing Company is a defiant one. As already stated, as far as the 2nd Opposite Party is concerned, instead of getting the needful done, they have made the Complainant to knock the doors of this Forum. In the circumstances, the above conduct of the Opposite Parties would certainly amount to deficiency of service within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.


    7. POINT NO.2:- It is needless to say that in the absence of that Mobile Instrument, the Complainant must have been put to some sort of agony, sufferance and loss. It is not as if the Complainant is responsible for the same. On the other hand, as stated supra, the Opposite Parties have failed to discharge their obligation. The 2nd Opposite Party as a Dealer have to gone to the extent of retaining that very Mobile Handset with them without providing a remedy to the Complainant. As provided in the said Warranty Card, the Manufacturing Company is liable to the Customer-Complainant in respect of the defects in the said product and the Warranty shall neither exclude, nor limit any of the Legal rights against the Manufacturer or against the Seller of the product. Wherefore in a situation like this, it is but proper to direct the Opposite Parties to get the defects in the said Mobile Handset removed at their own cost and deliver the same to the Complainant free from any defect and if or any reason, it is not possible to remove the defects in the said Mobile Handset, it is but proper to refund the amount so paid by the Complainant to that instrument. In addition to the same, it is just and necessary to direct the Opposite Parties to compensate the Complainant for not only causing inconvenience and hardship him, but also for driving him to this litigation. In the circumstances we feel, a sum of Rs.2,000/- if ordered by way of cost and compensation, ends of Justice would meet. Accordingly, this point is answered against the Complainant.


    8. POINT NO.3:- In the result, we proceed to pass the following:



    O R D E R



    Since, the alleged deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties is established, the Opposite Parties are hereby directed to get the defects in the Mobile Handset in question removed and deliver the same to the Complainant free from any defect without collecting any amount from the Complainant in that regard within 30 days from this date. If for any reason the defects in the said Mobile Handset cannot be removed then in that event, the Opposite Parties shall refund Rs.3,900/- (Rupees three thousand nine hundred) to the Complainant being the cost of that Instrument. In addition to the same, the Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) to the Complainant by way of cost and compensation.


    In case, the 2nd Opposite Party-Dealer is entitled for reimbursement from the 1st Opposite Party–Manufacturing Company, their right to get that reimbursement shall not be affected by this Order and as far as this Order is concerned, the Opposite Parties are liable to comply this Order jointly and severally.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    [FONT=&quot]Complainant:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ANAND RAJ G.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Mehta Chemicals[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] No.6 (Shop No.3) 6th Cross[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] 6th Main, S.R. Nagar[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] BANGALORE-560 027[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

    /vs/




    [FONT=&quot]Opposite Parties:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]M/s. NOKIA INDIA (P) LTD.,[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]5th Floor, Tower A & B[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Cyber green, DLF Cyber City[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Sector 25A, GURGAON [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]HARYANA-122 002[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]2.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]M/s. SUBHIKSHA TRADING [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]SERVICES LTD.,[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]No.259, 6th Cross, 1st Main[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Binnamangala, Indiranagar[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1st Stage, Bangalore- 560 038[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    O R D E R


    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties (Ops in short) for the refund of amount of Rs.10,720/-, expenses of Rs.2,000/- with costs and for such other reliefs.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one Nokia GSM Mobile phone model 5310 from Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd., Bangalore for Rs.10,720/- on Date 05/12/2007 (Bill enclosed) with IMEI NO.358653012886507 and Warranty reference No.APAINY 122632084, Warranty for one year from the date of Purchase. Since March 2008, complainant started facing problem in above mentioned mobile phone, the problem was it gets auto restarts and reboots while making and receiving calls and SMS, it means it was getting off and automatically gets on, regarding this he visited Nokia Care Centre they updated its software and returned mobile on the spot. After 10 to 15 days, he again started getting same problem. He visited Nokia Care Centre, they did the same job and returned the mobile and assured that it will not happen again.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] But in May month facing same problem, he visited nokia care centre and asked them to replace the mobile, they said that they would send mobile to their Channai Service Centre, the job sheet No.WAS 171434038/080401/43 dated 23/05/2008 he received his repaired mobile after 15 days, this time they assured that problem is rectified and if it repeats they will surely replace the set. Again after 15 days he started getting same problem, he visited nokia care centre and asked them to replace, the job sheet No.WAS 171434038/0804626/7 and he also lodged complaint with Customer Care the no. is 2-34YTLS on 26/06/2008, after 10 days they asked him to collect old mobile and said that they won’t replace it. And regarding his complaint he didn’t received any proper response. The same problem still he is facing till date, complainant very much disturbed with behavior of a such a big company for all this process, he has spent Rs.2,000/- for all this process. Hence, the complainant approached this forum.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Op1 appeared through its counsel, Op2 remained absent, even though notice was served on Op2. Hence Op2 placed ex-parte. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Complainant and Op1 permitted to submit their written arguments within 3 days as none of them were present on the date of arguments. The complainant in his evidence specifically stated about the purchase of mobile hand set for Rs.10,720/- and existence of warranty period. Complainant hardly used 2 to 3 months but thereafter it started giving problem and he was unable to use the mobile set. He visited Ops on several occasions with the problem and the same was rectified by the Ops by keeping it with them for 8 to 10 days but again the same problem was continued, the set was also sent to Chennai for repairs and inspite of that they were not able to rectify the defects. The Ops thereafter never bothered to the request of the complainant for rectification of the defect and also they have completely refused either to refund the amount or to replace it. When the defects of mobile set was brought to the notice of the Ops and when it is within the warranty period, it is the bounden duty of the Ops either to rectify it or to replace it or to refund the amount. But none of them were done by the Ops. This sort of an act on the part of the Ops definitely amounts to deficiency in service on their part. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] These facts have not been specifically denied by the Ops. Even though, the Op1 appeared through its counsel, it never bothered to file its statement of objection or evidence to rebut the evidence of the complainant. Op2 remained ex-parte. In the absence of specific denial by the Ops, the evidence given by the complainant is unchallenged.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Accordingly, we pass the following order.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]O R D E R[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to refund an amount of Rs.10,720/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order with cost of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only).[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Complainant is directed to hand over the mobile set to the Ops at the time of receiving the amount.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] In the event, Opposite parties 1 and 2 fails to refund the amount within the period as ordered by this forum, Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay an interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs.10,720/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty only) to the complainant from the date of this complaint to till the date of realization.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    M. Sameera,
    s/o Meeramaideen,
    HIGA 288 Tamil Nadu Housing Unit,
    Gandhigrammam,
    Karur. … Complainant
    -versus-
    1) The Proprietor,
    Nokia- Mobile Gallery,
    Transport House, Covai Road,
    Karur.

    2) Nokia India Private Limited,
    Nokia Telecom, Sipcot,
    Sriperumpudur 602 105. … Opposite Parties

    This complaint coming on this day for final hearing before us, in the presence of Thiru A. Balakumar, Counsel for complainant and Mr. R.Pandian, Counsel for opposite party No.1 and Mr. A.Pandian, Counsel for 2nd opposite party and the complainant made endorsement as she is not pressing the complaint and this Forum passed the following:
    ORDER
    1. The complaint is for directing the opposite parties to give the cellphone in a good condition after servicing the same or to pay Rs.1,650/-towards the price of the cellphone with 9% interest and to pay Rs.3,500/- towards expenses and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant.
    2. In view of the endorsement made by the complainant, this complaint is dismissed as not pressed without costs.
  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    Gopal Krishan aged about 29 years S/o Sh. Roshan Lal, R/o H. No. 33220, Street No. 8, Anand Vihar Chowk, Partap Nagar, Bathinda.

    .... Complainant
    Versus

    1. Jaura Stablizer, Authorised Retail Showroom of Nokia at Near Imperial Motors, Street No. 6, Nai Basti, Lower Mall Road, Bathinda through its Proprietor/Owner
    2. Hindtal Communication, Authoised Service Centre of Nokia, Opposite Sarup Singla's Office, Near Hotel Krishna Continental, Bathinda, through its Manager/Incharge/Proprietor
    3. The Care Manager, Nokia India Private Limited, 4-F,Tower, A & B, Cyber Green DLF, Cyber City, Sector 25-A, Gurgaon (Haryana)
    ... Opposite parties

    O R D E R


    1. Sh. Gopal Kishan , complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to “Act”) with the allegations that he purchased one colour mobile set Nokia- 6300 for Rs. 7350/- vide bill No. 2529 dated 14-04-2008 from opposite party No. 1 on the assurance that mobile set is one of the top most model of Nokia Company and is free from all types of defects. He was also assured that in case any defect occurs in the mobile set within guarantee/warranty period of one year, the defect shall be removed within no time and in case the defect is not curable, the set will be replaced with a new one. On the said assurance of opposite party No. 1, the complainant purchased the aforesaid mobile set. In the month of September, 2008, mobile set stopped working and started creating problems such as screen flickering and battery not properly charging.

    On 18th September, 2008, he approached opposite party No. 2 at the instance of opposite party No. 1 and handed over the mobile set for removing the defects and the same was returned to him after repairs, but the defects remained as such as it was a manufacturing defect.

    The complainant has to suffer unnecessary mental tension, agony, harassment and inconvenience without proper use of the mobile set. He also failed in all kinds of plannings due to non-functioning of the mobile set. He repeatedly requested the opposite parties to replace his mobile set with a new one or in the alternative to refund the price of the same alongwith interest, but the opposite parties have absolutely failed to given any response. He served a notice 12-12-2008 which was also ignored by the opposite parties. The complainant, thus claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- for undergoing mental tension, agony, physical harassment, financial loss in the business and reputation as well as he suffered monetary losses and also claimed for replacement of the mobile set being defective or in the alternative refund of its price alongith interest @ 18% per annum.



    2. On 24-02-2009, Sh. Harpreet Singh, Proprietor of opposite party No. 1 appeared before this Forum and requested for adjournment to file reply on the next date, but he did not turn up to file the reply. Accordingly, opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13-03-2009.



    3. Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Authorised Representative of opposite party No. 2 put an appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 2, but despite various opportunities, he did not file reply. On 02-04-2009 none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2. Hence, it was proceeded against exparte.



    4. Opposite party No. 3 appeared through his counsel Sh. Sukhdev Mittal, Advocate. However, despite availing opportunities, he did not file any reply on behalf of opposite party No. 3 and consequently vide order dated 02-04-2009 the defence of opposite party No. 3 was struck off.



    5. The complainant filed his affidavit Ex. C-12 in exparte evidence and also filed an affidavit of Sh. Vikram Rajpur Ex. C-1, Field Officer of Indusind Bank, Bathinda to prove the allegations as has been referred to herein above, to the effect that mobile set was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No. 1, for a consideration of Rs. 7350/- on 14-04-2009 on the assurance that if any defect occurs in the above said mobile set within warranty or guarantee period of one year, the defect shall be removed within no time and that in case the defect is of such a nature which is not removable, in that event, mobile set will be replaced with a new one. However, in September, 2008, mobile set stopped its working and started creating many problems i.e. screen flickering and battery not chargeable etc. The defects were brought to the notice of opposite party No. 2 at the instance of opposite party No. 1 and it was repaired but the defects persisted and thereafter the mobile set was kept by the opposite parties in their possession since 22-09-2008, as a result of which, the complainant has to suffer mental agony, harassment, inconvenience as well as financial loss as all the plannings sought by him have failed and the mobile set for which purpose it was purchased, could not be used. The complainant also brought on record legal notice Ex. C-5 served upon the opposite parties and the postal receipts Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4 and Ex. C-6 to Ex. C-8.


    6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the entire record of the case carefully.


    7. From the affidavit of the complainant Ex. C-12 and the affidavit of Sh. Vikram Rajput Ex. C-12, it is proved that complainant purchased one colour mobile set Nokia-6300 for a consideration of Rs. 7350/- from opposite party No. 1 on 14th April, 2008 and it went defective in the month of September, 2008.
    The defects were reported but the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 could not rectify the defects and ultimately, the mobile set was kept in their possession by the opposite parties since 22nd September, 2008, without making any replacement or return of its price. It is also proved from the two affidavits Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-12, that the complainant suffered mental tension, agony, physical harassment, financial loss in business and loss of reputation due to non-availability of the mobile set since September, 2008 despite the fact that he spent a handsome amount of Rs. 7350/- for acquiring the same, which went defective without any fault on the part of the complainant.
    Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 despite receiving the legal notice, did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant for replacing the defective mobile set nor they made any effort to return its price and complainant continued to suffer for more than six months without any fault on his part. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 were bound to indemnify the complainant for the defects the mobile set developed immediately after its purchase by the complainant.


    8. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte and none of them filed any reply or contested the allegations of the complainant.


    9. The opposite party No. 3 also despite availing opportunities, did not file any reply and, therefore, his defence was struck off. However on 27-04-2009, the opposite party No. 3 made a request that he is ready to replace the mobile set with same model with one year warranty meaning thereby that the opposite party No. 3 is ready to replace the mobile set with the same model with one year warranty which indicates the allegations of the complainant against the opposite parties.



    10. That on the basis of the evidence available on the record, it is proved that the mobile set went defective in September, 2008 and till 27th April, 2009, it remained in possession of the opposite parties and the opposite parties made no effort to indemnify the complainant for the loss and inconvenience, he has suffered due to non-availability of mobile set for which he is definitely entitled to be compensated reasonably and adequately. The complainant was forced by the adamant act and conduct of the opposite parties to file the present complaint, which is nothing but forced him to litigation and therefore, the complainant is also entitled to be reasonably compensated for litigation expenses.


    11. Taking into consideration the entire facts, circumstance, evidence and peculiarity of this particular case, we accept the complaint and proceed to direct the opposite parties as under :-
    i) Defective set be replaced with another mobile set of the same model with one year warranty or in the alternative return the entire price amount i.e. Rs. 7350/- alongwith interest @9% P.A. from 22nd September, 2008 till the payment is made.

    ii) The opposite parties shall also pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation on account of inconvenience, harassment and mental torture.

    iii) The complainant shall also be entitled for an amount of Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses.


    12. The opposite parties shall be liable to replace the mobile set or in the alternative its price amount and payment of compensation and litigation expenses jointly and severally.


    13. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    Kolli Satyanandam ,S/o Surya Prakasa Rao, Hindu,
    Male, aged 43 years, Health Education Officer
    R/o D.No.15-7-8, Muslimvari St., 12th Ward
    Bhimavaram, W.G. Dist., -- Complainant

    And
    1. The Manager, Vasishta Mobiles, D.No.27-1-4,
    J.P. Road, Bhimavaram, W.G.Dist.
    2. M/s. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.,
    2nd Floor, Redison Hotel, N.H.8,
    Mahipalpur, New Delhi-37,
    rep. by its Manager.

    -- Opposite Parties

    O R D E R

    This is a consumer complaint filed by the complainant under Sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- together with interest at 24% pa., from 1-4-2008 till the date of realization or in the alternative direct the opposite parties to replace the defective Nokia Mobile with new one and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards damages for rendering defective and deficiency in service and for costs. The circumstances that lead to the filing of this complaint are briefly as follows:



    2. The complainant claimed to have purchased Nokia Mobile phone bearing No.6125 on 1-4-2008 for a sum of Rs.8,000/- from the 1st opposite party who inturn issued a bill and supplied Manual by giving a warranty of one year to the handset and six months to the battery. The complainant alleged that from the date of purchase of the said mobile, it was not receiving signals of the Network due to manufacturing defect in the hand set. While so, on 28-4-2008 the complainant surrendered the defective handset to the 1st opposite party who promised that he would send the same to the company service station and that it would be returned after effecting repairs within a week.

    On 8-5-2008 the 1st opposite party returned the said handset stating that the problem could not be rectified by the Service Station and he further stated that it was a manufacturing defect and the manufacturer/2nd opposite party could only replace with new mobile. Thereupon, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 26-5-2008 but of no avail. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for the aforesaid reliefs.


    3. The 1st opposite party having received the notice on the complaint remained exparte.


    4. The 2nd opposite party filed its version denying the averments of the complaint and stated that the complainant never approached it and not brought to its notice about the defects in the handset purchased by him, and that the 1st opposite party is not the concerned service station, and that the complainant had not produced any proof of worksheet etc., to show that there is a defect in the handset and therefore the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for by him.


    5. The complainant in support of his case filed his proof affidavit and got marked Ex A.1 to Ex A.5. The contesting 2nd opposite party filed its affidavit and got no documents marked.



    6. The points for determination now are :

    1) Whether there is any deficiency or unfair trade practice in rendering service to the complainant by the opposite parties ?

    2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for by him ?

    3) To what relief ?

    POINT No: 1:

    Ex A.1 is the bill produced by the complainant to show that he purchased Nokia Mobile from the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.8,000/- on 1-4-2008. Both the parties did not raise any dispute in that regard. So it is borne out from the record that the complainant purchased the Nokia Mobile handset from the 1st opposite party under Ex A.1 bill and the 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the said mobile handset.


    It is the case of the complainant that ever since the date of purchase of the handset from the 1st opposite party, it started giving trouble and thereupon when he brought the said set to the 1st opposite party, he was told that the defect of the handset was a manufacturing defect and therefore it should be replaced by the 2nd opposite party. It is also the case of the complainant that the 1st opposite party had not taken any trouble to rectify the defects in the mobile set, even though, he got issued legal notice to both the parties under Ex A.2. It is a fact borne out from the record that the 1st opposite party having received the said notice kept quite without rectifying the requisite defects of the handset in question. Further the 1st opposite party having received the notice on the complaint also remained exparte.

    Therefore it is made clear by the complainant that the defect arose in the handset was due to the manufacturing defect. As per the contention of the 2nd opposite party, it is no doubt true that the defect in the handset was not brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party at the initial stage. But Ex A.2/Office copy of the legal notice clearly goes to show that at the time when the 1st opposite party did not comply the requisite defects found in the handset, the complainant similarly brought the same to the notice of the 2nd opposite party. At the same time, it is not the contention of the 2nd opposite party that he had issued a suitable reply notice. Further more, the 2nd opposite party in his affidavit stated that the complainant had misused the mobile as such corrupted the delicate gadget of the mobile set. Except taking such a plea, the 2nd opposite party did not produce any proof in that regard.
    Therefore the defense set up by the 2nd opposite party is only a false story invented by it in order to evade the replacement of the mobile set which can be attributed to unfair trade practice on its part. It is no doubt true that Ex A.5 is said to be a reply notice got issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. It is also no doubt true that the 1st opposite party in the said reply notice completely denied the allegations leveled by the complainant. However the 1st opposite party having received the notice on the complaint remained exparte. Under the said circumstances, the reply notice Ex A.5 got issued by the 1st opposite party will not help the 1st opposite party in any manner to discreet the testimony of the complainant.

    Under the said circumstances, the complainant clearly established that both the opposite parties did not comply the defects noticed in the handset. It is also the unchallenged version of the complainant that the 1st opposite party informed him that the defect noticed in the handset is a manufacturing defect for which replacement of the same is required with a new handset. That apart, the role played by both the opposite parties in not rendering proper service to the complainant and taking some unjustifiable reasons amounts to unfair trade practice.

    Under the said circumstances, this is a fit case where both the parties can be directed to replace the handset purchased by the complainant with a new one.

    PONT No: 2 :

    On a careful consideration of the entire material on record and for the reasons stated supra, we hold that the complainant clearly established his case and a direction to both the opposite parties to replace the handset in question with a new one will meet the ends of justice.

    POINT No: 3:

    In the results, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to replace the defective Nokia cell phone in question with a new Nokia cell phone of same value and hand over the same to the complainant within 15 days from the date of due dispatch of free copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    Sri. P.B.V. Sivannarayana, S/o Jaya Prasad, Hindu, male,
    R/o Kaikaram, Ungutur Mandal, W.G. Dist., -- Complainant

    And

    1. The Authorised Officer ,BIG Showroom, Laksyani Mobiles India Pvt., Ltd.,
    D.No.23B-9-6, Ramachandraraopet, Eluru
    W.G. Dist.,

    2. The Office Incharge
    Laksyani Mobiles India Pvt., Ltd.,
    Head Office, D.No. 6-1-8, Opp. Vijaya Talkies Road
    T.Nagar, Rajahmundry, E.G. Dist.,

    3. The Authorised Officer
    Nokia India Pvt., Ltd., Radison Hotel
    Commercial Flat, N.H.8, Mahipalpur
    New Delhi, 110 007 -- Opposite Parties


    O R D E R


    This is a consumer complaint filed by the complainant requesting this Forum to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.23,400/- with subsequent interest at 24% pa., from the date of complaint till the date of realization, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards damages and costs. The circumstances that lead to filing this complaint are briefly as follows:


    2. The complainant claimed to have purchased Nokia Mobile Phone Nokia N 73 M on 5-6-2007 from the 1st Opposite Party. The complainant alleged that on 9-5-2008 as the said mobile phone developed problems in Joy Stick and side scrolling buttons, he handed over the same to the 1st opposite party for repair and the opposite party in turn returned the cell phone by effecting repairs but while checking the cell phone it was found that the Camera was not functioning properly. Then he had brought the said fact to the notice of the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party assured that the problem would be rectified within 20 days.

    But as the problem remained persisting, on 29-5-2008 the complainant handed over the mobile to the 1st opposite party for effecting repairs. But subsequently inspite of several requests made by the complainant the opposite parties failed to return the said phone by effecting repairs and postponing the same on one pretext or the other. As such, he got issued a legal notice on 13-8-2008 but the opposite parties having received the said notice failed to respond thereof. As the 3rd opposite party is the manufacturer and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are seller and the service provider respectively, all the opposite parties are jointly liable to pay costs of the cell phone and compensation. Ascribing the acts of the Opposite Parties to deficiency in service, the complainant approached this Forum for redressal.


    3. The 1st Opposite Party filed its version resisting the complaint by contending that the complainant after using the cell phone in question for along period of 11 months with malafide intention to get a new set, had handed over the set to the 1st opposite party on 9-5-2008 as if the set was giving trouble. After four days the set was handed over to the complainant by rectifying the alleged defect. Again on 29-5-2008 the complainant came to the 1st opposite party with another complaint and the 1st opposite party issued voucher (job sheet) to the complainant and the set was sent to the service station of Nokia India Pvt., Ltd., and the said defect was got rectified. But as the complainant failed to produce the voucher, the 1st opposite party could not deliver the set.

    Then the complainant stated that the voucher was misplaced and as the warranty period is getting expired he demanded the opposite party to replace with new cell phone and threatened it that he would file a complaint. The opposite party maintained that it is always ready and willing to hand over the set in good working condition and as the complainant failed to produce the voucher it could not return the set and stated that there was no deficiency in service on its part and prayed this forum to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.,

    4. The 2nd opposite party remained exparte.

    5. The 3rd opposite party filed its version by reiterating the averments mentioned in the version of the 1st opposite party.

    6. In support of his case, the complainant filed his own affidavit and relied upon the documents marked as Ex A.1 to A.8. The opposite parties have not filed any documents.

    5. Heard both sides.

    6. The points that arise for consideration are :

    1. Whether the deficiency in service alleged by the complainant is proved against the opposite parties ?

    2. To what relief ?


    Point No.1 :
    The entire evidence and the pleadings of the complainant went on placing the entire burden on the Opposite Parties for not delivering the hand set under working condition after effecting repairs to the cell phone in question. In this context, the plea raised by the Opposite Parties that at the time of taking the cell phone from the complainant, the 1st opposite party issued a voucher (jab sheet) and after effecting the repairs to the cell phone, the 1st opposite party requested the complainant to produce the voucher thereby enabling the opposite party to return the cell phone in question and without presenting the voucher, he approached this forum to gain wrongfully.


    As seen from the contents mentioned in the complaint, the complainant had not spell out regarding the issuance of voucher by the 1st opposite party and the subsequent demand by it for returning the said set and straight away filed this complaint after issuance of legal notice with a prayer for reimbursement of the costs of the cell phone and for award of compensation. Therefore the burden rests on the complainant in proving the fact that as to what prevented him in not producing the voucher to the 1st opposite party when he was in a position to produce the same before the Forum and got marked as Ex A.4.

    Therefore, the version of the complainant that the opposite parties failed to return the cell phone can not be accepted. If the complainant really had an intention to take back the mobile phone he ought to have presented the voucher marked as Ex A.4 to the 1st opposite party at that time itself, instead of approaching this Forum enclosing Ex A.4 voucher to this complaint.


    Further more, the complainant in his affidavit traversed that the 1st opposite party got issued a reply with all false and untenable allegations but the complainant failed to file the said reply in this Forum. This obviously turns our mind to believe the version of the opposite parties. If the complainant had produced the voucher as demanded by the 1st opposite party, he would have got delivery of the phone without knocking the doors of this Forum. But due to failure on the part of the complainant in presenting the voucher as demanded by the opposite party, the refusal of the 1st opposite party can not be ascribed to deficiency in service.


    Point No.2:
    For the reasons stated above, the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs. But however a direction to the opposite parties to return the cell phone in question under good condition to the complainant will meet the ends of justice. The point is answered accordingly.

    Accordingly, the complaint is disposed off with a direction to the opposite parties to hand over the cell phone in question under good condition after duly effecting the needed defects to the complainant within a week from the date of due dispatch of free copy of this order. No order as to costs.
  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    1. The brief facts set out in the complaint are :-
    On 13-03-2008, the complainant has purchased a mobile handset from the 2nd opposite party at a price of Rs. 28,500/-. From 08-08-2008 onwards, video display system was not working. As per the direction of the 2nd opposite party, he approached the service centre they intimated that for repairing the phone an amount of Rs. 5,500/- was required and there was all chances for a total halt. As the opposite parties have not rendered proper service, the complainant purchased another phone for Rs. 3,100/-. Thereafter on 12-08-08, the complainant caused lawyer notice to the opposite parties and they sent a reply stating that the gadget was damaged due to water logging. Hence, the complainant seeking direction against the opposite parties neither to replace with a brand new one or to refund its price with compensation and costs.


    2. The 2nd opposite party filed the following version :-
    i) The 2nd opposite party admits the vending of the set under dispute.
    ii) As per the direction of the 2nd opposite party, the service centre examined the set and found to have it liquid logged in display. Accordingly an estimate for Rs. 5,500/- was issued to the complainant for service.
    iii) Manufacturer is not liable for free service of the set as per the terms and conditions of warranty and it was clearly mentioned in the reply notice.
    iv) There is no deficiency of service from the part of the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party requests to dismiss the complaint.


    3. Notice of this complaint was served on the 1st opposite party, but they were absent during the proceedings. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A6 marked from his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the 2nd opposite party. The respective counsel were heard.


    4. Points that arose for our consideration are :-
    i) Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement
    of the phone or refund of its price?
    ii) Compensation and costs?


    5. Point Nos. i) and ii) :- It is not in dispute that the complainant has purchased a mobile hand set from the 2nd opposite party at the price of Rs. 28,500/-. It is also not in dispute that the 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of the same.

    6. Ext. A3 lawyer notice would show that the complainant has caused notice to the opposite parties informing them either to replace the set or refund its price. Ext. A4 is the reply notice of the 2nd opposite party. There is no reason before us to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Though the 2nd opposite party has contended that the set has been damaged due to water logging, no report or evidence is before us to substantiate the same aspect. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the set is suffering from manufacturing defect. Moreover on 28-05-09, the case has been taken up in the adalath for settlement. The learned counsel Mr. Binu Mathew appearing for the 1st opposite party submitted that they are ready to refund the invoice price of the gadget in dispute provided the complainant returns the same with all its accessories. In view of the above submission and considering the facts and circumstances, we are not ordering any compensation and cost.

    7. Thus, we allow the complaint and direct that,
    i) the 1st opposite party shall refund Rs. 28,500/- to the complainant being the price of the mobile handset in question, when the complainant returns the gadget under dispute simultaneously to the 1st opposite party.
    ii) the above amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date fixed for compliance of this order till realisation.

    The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    K. Subramanian,

    s/o Kandasamy,

    P. Vellalapatti,

    Melur 4th street,

    Puliyur CF Post. Karur. … Complainant

    -versus-



    1. Univercell Telecommunications India Pvt. Ltd.,

    Rep. by its Manager,

    Jawahar Bazaar, Near Head Post Office,

    Karur.



    2. Nokia India Pvt. Limited,(Nokia Telecom SEZ)

    Sipcot Industrial Park, Phase III A,

    Sriperumpudur 602 105.

    Tamil Nadu. … Opposite Parties





    This complaint coming on 23rd day of April 2009 for final hearing before us in the presence of Thiru P. Thangavel, Counsel for Complainant and Thiru A.Vijayakumar, Counsel for 1st Opposite Party and Mr. A. Pandian, Counsel for 2nd opposite party and hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following order:
    ORDER



    1. The crux of the complaint is : -

    The complainant on 14.06.2008 has purchased a Nokia handset of 1209 model for Rs.1,600/- from the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party has issued a replacement warranty for 12 months. The handset did not function well from the next day. The complainant met the first opposite party who instructed the complainant to hand over the handset to the service engineer.

    On 19.6.2008 the complainant handed over the handset to the first opposite party who issued job card. The first opposite party refused to rectify the defects within the warranty period and demanded Rs.350/-. The complainant has issued a lawyer notice on 25.6.2008 and the first opposite party has issued a reply . The complainant alleges deficiency in service and manufacturing defect in the hand set and has filed the complaint to direct the opposite party to replace the defective handset, compensation and cost.



    2. The first opposite party has filed written version and the contentions in brief is:-

    The first opposite party has stated that they are retailer and that the handset will be replaced by the second opposite party only after scrutiny by their service engineers and replacement will be effected if there is manufacturing defect. The first opposite party had requested the complainant to approach the 2nd opposite party. The customer has reported defects and the same was forwarded to the second opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint has to be dismissed.



    3. The second opposite party has filed written version and the contentions in brief is:-

    The second opposite party has stated that they provide limited warrant of 12 months from the date of purchase of the product. In certain abnormal conditions as mentioned in Clause 7(a) of limited warranty no such benefits are available to the consumers. The limited warranty document is a part of user manual and is inserted in every package of handset. The allegations made in the complaint are unsubstantiated and hence complain has to be dismissed.



    4. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if so to what relief the complainant is entitled for?



    5. POINT : The complainant to prove his case has filed proof affidavit along with 5 documents and the same has been marked as Ex. A1 to A5.



    6. The complainant has purchased a Nokia handset of 1209 model on 14.6.2008 for Rs.1,600/- from the 1st opposite party. The copy of the bill is produced and placed as Exhibit A1. The same is not disputed by the 1st opposite party. The complainant had stated that the first opposite party has issued a replacement warranty for 12 months. But the second opposite party had

    contended that they provide limited warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase of the product. In certain abnormal conditions as mentioned in Clause 7(a) of limited warranty no such benefits are available to the consumers. The complainant had stated that the handset did not function well from the next day. The complainant met the first opposite party who instructed the complainant to hand over the handset to the service engineer. The complainant had handed over the handset on 19.6.2008 to the first opposite party who issued job card. The job card is produced before us as Exhibit A2. All these facts are not disputed and the bone of contention is whether the alleged defect in the handset is within the purview of warranty offered by the opposite parties.


    The 2nd opposite party has categorically stated that every consumer gets one year limited warranty period, subject to terms and conditions contained in the warrant clause and the extract has been reproduced by them which reads as follows: “ This limited warranty period does not cover normal wear and tear(including without limitation, wear and tear of camera lenses, batteries and displays, transport costs, defects caused by rough handling(including, without limitation, defects caused by sharp items, by bending, compressing or dropping etc., defects or damage caused by misusage of the product including the use, contrary to the instructions provided by Nokia, other acts beyond reasonable control of Nokia…..” In this context on perusal of service job sheet produced as document along with the proof affidavit by the first opposite party reveals that the defect is due to physical damage and water damaged and as such the alleged defect is not within the warranty provided by the opposite parties. The complainant has not taken any efforts to establish that the alleged defect in the handset is a manufacturing defect. The complainant has not filed any application before this Forum seeking to get the handset inspected by independent professional and obtain his opinion to counter-blast the service job sheet of the opposite parties which points that the defects is due to physical damage and water damage.

    The complainant had failed to substantiate that the handset suffers from manufacturing defect. The opposite parties had established their contention that the alleged defect is not within the purview of the warranty given by them since it is only limited warranty. In view of the above discussion and the documentary evidences placed before us we are not inclined to hold the act of the opposite parties as deficiency in service. So, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed by him. Point is answered accordingly.
  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    O.P Singh S/o Sh. Sagar Singh, R/o House No. 48, Field Health Organization, C/o 56 APO, Bathinda Cantt.


    Versus

    1. M/s. Nokia India Private Limited, Second Floor, Commercial Plaza, Radisson Hotel, NH-8, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-37 through its Managing Director/Chairman.

    2. M/s. Bhagta Sales House, Near Bus Stand, Bathinda through its Proprietor.

    1.

    Sh. O.P Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short called the 'Act') against the opposite parties with the allegations that he purchased one Nokia-5130 mobile set having IMEI No. 3593290439196 from opposite party No. 2 vide bill No. 1868 dated 4.3.2009 for an amount of Rs. 7,200/-. Complainant later-on acquired knowledge that the actual price of the mobile set is Rs. 5,850/- and the different dealers of opposite party No. 1 are charging the cost between Rs. 5,800/- to Rs. 5,900/-. Complainant thereafter immediately approached opposite party No. 2 and told him that he has charged an amount of Rs. 1,350/- in excess of the actual value of the Nokia mobile set model 5130 sold to him for Rs. 7,200/- vide bill dated 4.3.2009. Opposite party No. 2 refused to refund the amount and told him that he is at liberty to get the relief from the court. He is not in a position to refund any amount because he has purchased the set from opposite party No. 1 for Rs. 7,200/- and he snatched the original bill forcibly from the complainant. He further pleaded that opposite party No. 2 in an unfair manner grabbed an amount of Rs. 1,350/- in excess of the actual price of the mobile set and thus exploited the position of the complainant as innocent consumer. The complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment, botheration and inconvenience due to the unwarranted act and conduct of opposite party No. 2 for which he is entitled to reasonable amount of compensation. He has also claimed reasonable amount of litigation expenses.
    2.

    Opposite party No. 1 did not contest the complaint, whereas opposite party No. 2 filed reply raising inter-alia preliminary objections that the complaint has been filed on false and baseless grounds. At the time of purchase of Nokia mobile set on 4.3.2009, the complainant had firstly selected another model of mobile set, the value of which was Rs. 7,200/- and thereafter, he selected Nokia mobile set model 5130. Inadvertently, bill was issued for Rs. 7,200/-. When the mistake was realized, opposite party No. 2 there and then returned Rs. 950/- to the complainant. Due to inadvertence and good faith, opposite party No. 2 could not correct the amount of the bill. Otherwise, there is no truth in the version of the complainant. The complainant be burdened with costs of Rs. 5000/-. On merits, opposite party No 2 has reiterated the facts he has raised in the preliminary objections.
    3.

    In order to prove their respective assertions, complainant as well as opposite party No. 2 led evidence. Complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavits Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.2, affidavit Ex.C.3 of one Ashwani Kumar, photocopy of dealer price list Ex.C.4, photocopy of bill No. 1868 dated 4.3.2009 Ex.C.5 and photocopy of retail invoice dated 4.3.2009 Ex.C.6.
    4.

    To controvert the evidence of the complainant, opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Sat Pal.
    5.

    We have heard the complainant as well as opposite party No. 2 which were present in person and gone through the entire record of the case very carefully.
    6.

    Complainant has urged that he visited the business premises of opposite party No. 2 on 4.3.2009 and he purchased one Nokia mobile set model 5130. Opposite party No 2 charged an amount of Rs. 7,200/- as cost of Nokia mobile set and he also issued bill Ex.C.5 for Rs. 7,200/-. He also urged that after sometime, he came to know that the actual cost of the Nokia mobile set model 5130 is Rs.5,768/-. As per dealer price list of Nokia mobile sets for distributors and stockists Ex.C.4, the cost of Nokia mobile set model 5130 is Rs. 5,768/- and another Nokia retailer has sold the same Nokia set on the same date i.e. 4.3.2009 for an amount of Rs. 5,850/- vide retail invoice Ex.C.6. The complainant urged that he has been cheated by opposite party No. 2 by charging more than an amount of Rs.1,350/- over and above the actual price as per the dealer list Ex.C.4.
    7.

    Opposite party No. 2 has urged that infact complainant visited his business premises and firstly, he purchased another set for an amount of Rs. 7,200/-, but after the bill Ex.C.5 was prepared, he purchased the other set of less value and therefore, he immediately returned on the spot itself Rs.950/- to the complainant, but this correction he could not make in the bill Ex.C.5 due to inadvertence and taking undue advantage of bill Ex.C.5, complainant has filed the present complaint against him on wrong facts.
    8.

    We have taken into consideration the respective contentions of the parties vis-a-vis the evidence led by both the parties to prove their respective assertions. It appears from the affidavits of the complainant Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 that the facts he has narrated in his complaint are fully corroborated. He has also examined another witness Sh. Ashwani Kumar and brought his affidavit Ex.C.3 on the record. He has specifically stated in his affidavit Ex.C.3 that he accompanied the complainant for getting excess amount charged by opposite party No. 2 against Nokia mobile set model 5130 on 5.3.2009, but opposite party No. 2 rebuked and insulted the complainant and he totally refused to refund the excess amount. He even snatched the original bill from the complainant.

    In view of the facts narrated by the complainant in his two affidavits Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.2 which are duly corroborated by Sh. Ashwani Kumar in his affidavit Ex.C.3 also find support from undisputed dealer price list of Nokia mobile sets for distributors and stockists Ex.C.4 which reveals the price of Nokia mobile set model 5130 as Rs. 5,768/-. It also appears that another Nokia mobile set model 5130 was sold by another retailer to one Sh. R Mohan Garg on 4.3.2009 vide invoice Ex.C.6 for Rs. 5,850/- only, whereas opposite party No. 2 sold the same mobile set to the complainant on the same date i.e. 4.3.2009 vide invoice Ex.C.5 for an amount of Rs. 7,200/-, meaning thereby that even if the cost of Nokia mobile set model 5130 is taken as Rs. 5,850/- as per invoice Ex.C.6 which includes the reasonable profit of the dealer as well, definitely complainant has been cheated by opposite party No. 2 by charging an excess amount of Rs. 1,350/- in a whimsical manner by exploiting his position as a service provider against the complainant which is consumer.

    There appears to be no substance in the submission of opposite party No. 2 that infact the complainant purchased another Nokia mobile set of the value of Rs. 7,200/- and thereafter, he purchased another mobile set with less value and that he returned the amount of Rs. 950/- to the complainant on the spot. If this would have been the position, opposite party No.2 would have definitely pointed out to us which model infact complainant had purchased and for which the actual cost was Rs. 7,200/-. During the course of arguments, opposite party No. 2 was shown the dealers price list of Nokia mobile sets, but he could not point out as to which model Nokia mobile set was sold by him to the complainant. Taking into consideration the averments made by the complainant in his affidavits Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 and also affidavit Ex.C.3 of Sh. Ashwani Kumar, the bills of purchase Ex.C.5 & Ex.C.6 vis-a-vis dealer price list Ex.C.4, we have no doubt in our mind that the complainant has been cheated by opposite party No. 2 by selling Nokia mobile set model 5130 of actual value between Rs. 5,700/- to Rs. 5,800/-, infact selling the same for an amount of Rs. 7,200/-. The complainant under the circumstances is not only entitled to the refund of the excess amount i.e. Rs. 1,350/-, but also punitive charges as well as expenses for forced litigation, which the complainant has to fight for the redressal of his grievances. We, accordingly, accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties to do as under :-

    ( i ) Opposite party No. 2 shall refund an amount of Rs. 1,350/- to

    the complainant.

    ( ii ) Opposite party No. 2 shall also be liable to pay punitive charges for putting the complainant unnecessary harassment, inconvenience, mental agony, tension and grabbing excess amount than the actual cost of the mobile set to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

    ( iii ) Due to the adamant act and conduct of opposite party No. 2, the complainant was forced to file the present litigation for his genuine grievances and therefore, he had to make expenditure not only for filing the complaint, paying required fee and also for legal assistance and we reasonably assess the total value of litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,500/-.

    ( iv) Opposite party No. 1 shall issue necessary directions to all the stockists and dealers to display the dealer price list of all the models of the mobile sets they are authorised to put for sale for the general public on conspicuous place at the entrance of their business premises so as to avoid any overcharging of cost from the consumers.

    ( v ) Opposite party No. 2 will also display the dealer price list of all the models of the Nokia mobile sets put for sale to the general public, as issued by opposite party No. 1 from time to time and also similar situated companies, if their mobile sets are put to sale for the general public i.e. consumers.
  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    Sri Tummaganti Sriharsha, S/o Gopala Krishna Rao, Hindu, aged 32 years, practicing as an Advocate, R/o D.No.9-10-1/2, Shivajipalem, Ammavari Street, Peda Waltair, Visakhapatnam - 17.

    … Complainant

    1. M/s Nokia India Private Limited, 2nd Floor, Commerical Plaza, Radison Hotel, N.H. 5 8, Mahipalpur, New Delhi, Rep. by its Managing Director.

    2. SMS Enterprises, Shop No.1, Sri Datta Sai Enclave, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam – 2.

    3. Nokia Care Centre, HCL Infinet Limited Shop No.23, 1st Floor, Found Plaza, Opposite Party. Saraswathi Theatre, Suryabagh, Visakhapatnam-16

    ... Opposite Parties


    : O R D E R :

    1. The complainant a practicing advocate, purchased a mobile phone of Nokai Model N-70 from 2nd opposite party, an authorized dealer, on 25-04-2006 for an amount of Rs.18,900/-. Unfortunately the set started giving trouble immediately after purchase and the 2nd opposite party made some minor adjustments and assured that there won’t be any further problem. However in the month of August 2006, the handset again started mal-functioning, the 2nd opposite party pleading it to be manufacturing defect, directed the complainant to approach 3rd opposite party, Nokia Care Centre, the authorized repair center. The handset was surrendered to the 3rd opposite party and job sheet bearing No.1460 was given. But, inspite of promises, the 3rd opposite party never delivered back the handset. The complainant then issued legal notice to both the opposite parties 2 and 3, complaining deficiency in service and demanding pay back the value of handset, together with damages of Rs.80,000/-. Having failed to get any response from them, this complaint, impleading the 1st opposite party manufacturer, for return of the cost of the Nokia Handset Rs.18,700/- with interest @ 24% p.a. and also Rs.40,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and monetary loss suffered besides costs of Rs.5,000/-.

    2. 1st opposite party alone contested the matter and filed counter denying any liability and pleading that the complaint is nothing but gross abuse of process of law. It took up a stand that the service would be done free of charge only under limited warranty coverage and further if it is a genuine set. It also took stand that the replacement as per limited warranty terms is limited only where the repair is not possible. Though lengthy counter has been filed, the complaint of the handset was surrendered with the authorized repairing center and it was not returned, was neither denied nor referred to even. Ultimately it pleaded for dismissal of the complaint.

    3. At the time of enquiry the complainant apart from filing his own affidavit, marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5. The opposite parties did not chose to participate in the enquiry and hence it is treated it does not have any evidence to substantiate its plea. The complainant naturally reiterated his contentions at the time of hearing.

    4. The point for determination is

    whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled for the relief asked for?

    5. The fact that the complainant purchased handset from 2nd opposite part cannot be denied, though the contention opposite party did not admit it, as even otherwise Ex.A.1 receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party would prove the same. Ex.A.2 is job card issued by the 3rd opposite party and it would show that the fault of the handset was no network, no charging indication and sudden drop in signal. It was dated 30-08-2006. It contains an endorsement dated 28-09-2006 that the handset would be returned on Wednesday. A similar endorsement dated 07-10-2006 was there which would show that by Monday, it would be returned or a new set will be purchased. Another document is Ex.A.3 legal notice issued to both the opposite parties 2 and 3 narrating the events and failure to return the handset repaired and demanding repayment of the value of the handset and damages of Rs.80,000/-. The very job sheet itself would prove that the handset is handed over to the 3rd opposite party, who is the authorized repairing center, representing 1st opposite party and it has got a responsibility and liability to return the same. But evidently it was not done so, inspite of issue of legal notice. This would establish that the complainant was deprived of his handset by the failure of the 3rd opposite party to return the same. It failed to render proper after sales service and even went to the extent of depriving the complainant, the goods purchased from them. It amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

    6. There cannot be any doubt that having spent substantial amount the complainant was deprived of facility of communications and he must have been put to lot of inconvenience. He must have suffered mental agony also, being deprived of a valuable handset. Considering these factors, in our view, ordering payment of Rs.10,000/- as compensation would be just and proper. The complainant would naturally be entitled for reimbursement of the purchase price of the handset i.e., Rs.18,700/- with interest @ 12% p.a., from 01-09-2006 till the date of payment. Accordingly this point is answered.

    7. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs.18,700/- (Rupees eighteen thousand seven hundred only) being the value of the Nokia handset, together with interest @ 12% p.a., from 01-09-2006 till the date of payment. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and also costs of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only). Advocate fee Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).
  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    Smt. M. Prameela. W/o Suresh, Hindu, female,

    Housewife, R/o Eluru, W.G. Dist., -- Complainant



    And



    1. The Proprietor , Sri Vasavi Delux World

    Opp: Madhulatha Hotel, Eluru-2

    W.G. Dist.,



    2. The Care Manager

    Nokia India Pvt., Ltd.,

    4F-Tower-A & B, Cyber Green, DLF Cyber city

    Sector -25A, Gurgaon -122002, Haryana State -- Opposite Parties

    O R D E R



    The complainant being an housewife filed the present complaint under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.7,300/- towards costs of the Nokia Cell phone together with subsequent interest at the rate of 24%pa., from the date of complaint till the date of realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by her together with costs of the complaint. The averments of the complaint in brief are that :



    2. The 1st opposite party is one of the sellers of Nokia Cell phones in Eluru town and the 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of Nokia Cell phones. The complainant on 6-12-2007 purchased Nokia Cell phone bearing Model No. 7610 (black) with IMEI No. 356965013 with battery No. 0670400417 from the 1st opposite party by paying a sum of Rs.7,300/-. She purchased the said phone for her daily use and the 1st opposite party also gave a warranty period of one year. After purchase of the cell phone, the complainant faced much difficulty due to the non-functioning of the cell phone. Then she went and handed over the sell phone to the 1st opposite party for effecting repairs. The 1st opposite party after effecting repairs and handed over the cell phone to the complainant and when the complainant started to use the same, she found that the same was as usual previously. Immediately the complainant again approached the 1st opposite party and asked about the non-functioning of the said cell phone and handed over the same to the 1st opposite party who in turn returned to her after 15 days by saying that it was in perfect condition. Believing the words of the 1st opposite party the complainant took the instrument and when she started using the mobile, the same error occurred again.

    Thereupon the complainant again approached the 1st opposite party and when she questioned about the same, the 1st opposite party asked her to wait for two months by saying that the servicing center would be shifted to Eluru from Vijayawada. Later the complainant approached the 1st opposite party so many times and requested for replacement of the cell phone or to pay the costs of the same as the 1st opposite party did not rectify the problems arose in the cell phone. But the 1st opposite party neither gave any new piece nor paid any amount and on the other hand dragging the matter on some pretext or the other by giving evasive replies which caused her suffering from mental agony. Thereafter when the efforts made by the complainant were proved futile, she got issued a legal notice to both the parties demanding them to either replace the cell phone or refund the costs of the cell phone. Both the parties having acknowledged the receipt of the said notice, the 2nd opposite party did not even give any reply, but however the 1st opposite party gave a reply with some false and untenable allegations. The acts of the opposite parties in not complying the request made by the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on their part which caused a lot of mental agony to her. Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid reliefs.



    3. The 1st opposite party filed version denying the averments of the complaint and stated that the complainant never approached their shop at any time for repairs of the cell phone and he came to know about the same only after receipt of the legal notice got issued by the complainant for which he accordingly gave a suitable reply notice with all real state of affairs, and that this opposite party is only a seller of the cell phone and as per the bill issued, the warranty or guaranty if any should be attended by the 2nd opposite party and hence the question of dereliction of duties of the opposite party and other allegations ie., anti customer motive and negligent acts on the part of this opposite party does not arise and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

    4. The 2nd opposite party filed its version denying the averments of the complaint and stated that the complainant not filed any proof to show that she approached anybody for effecting repairs to the Nokia cell phone purchased by her from the 1st opposite party, that the 1st opposite party is only the seller but not the servicing agent, that as per the terms and conditions of the warranty, the complainant has to approach the concerned service center for getting the mobile rectified but she did not do so, and that the complainant had not approached this Forum with clean hands and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

    5. The complainant in proof of her claim filed her own affidavit and got marked Ex A.1 to Ex A.6. On the other hand, the opposite parties 1 and 2 to substantiate their defense mentioned in their versions, filed separate affidavits and got no documents marked.


    6. The points for determination now are :


    1) Whether the deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 and 2 is proved ?


    2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed by her ?


    3) To what relief ?


    POINT No: 1

    As per the averments of the complaint and the proof affidavit filed by the complainant coupled with cash bill Ex A.1 and so also the version of the 1st opposite party there is no dispute in the matter about the purchasing of the cell phone by the complainant from the 1st opposite party under the original Cash Bill/ExA.1.

    It is the contention of the complainant that since the date of her purchase of the cell phone from the 1st opposite party, it started giving trouble in its functioning and thereupon she approached the 1st opposite party for rectification of the defects in the cell phone for about 3 times but inspite of it, the cell phone was not properly rectified. It is the contention of the 1st opposite party that there is no proof in the contention of the complainant and in fact, the complainant never approached him and never brought the defects of the cell phone to his notice and that he is only a seller of the Nokia cell phones. It may be no doubt true that the complainant had not produced any proof to show that she approached the 1st opposite party twice and thrice for getting repairs of the phone purchased by her from the 1st opposite party under Ex A.1. But at the same time, it has to be kept in mind that the 1st opposite party was in receipt of the legal notice under original of Ex A.2 got issued by her. A perusal of the recitals of Ex A.2 clearly goes to show that the complainant brought all the said facts to the notice of the opposite parties about the non-functioning of the cell phone from the beginning of its purchase. It may also be no doubt true that the 1st opposite party had given reply under Ex A.5. A perusal of the recitals of the reply Ex A.5 given by the 1st opposite party clearly goes to show that he completely denied the version of the complainant that she never approached him at any time.

    If such is the situation, when the complainant brought about the defectiveness of the cell phone through the legal notice, the 1st opposite party through his reply ought to have advised her to approach the servicing center for getting the cell phone repaired or for its replacement if there is any manufacturing defect. But the 1st opposite party failed to do so which itself amounts to unfair trade practice on his part in not guiding the complainant properly. It may also be no doubt true that the 1st opposite party may be a seller of the cell phone. But simply because he is the seller that does not mean that he can escape from his liability for the reason that he is getting substantive profit from the sale of goods. In other words, it can be said that if the customer/complainant encounters with any problem regarding the functioning of the cell phone, the seller/1st opposite party with whom alone the complainant will have contact has to take interest and responsibility to see that the goods sold by him are rendered free from defects. Usually the consumers like the present complainant will go and purchase the goods like the cell phones from the popular retail outlets with a hope that they will take responsibility and show interest towards maintenance of the goods sold by them by invoking the help from the concerned servicing centers or from the manufacturers. Therefore, we are of the view that if any defect is found in the set, it is the duty of the 1st opposite party the retail outlet, to get the defect rectified by invoking the help of the manufacturer or their agent for rendering after care service. In the case on hand, both the parties except taking a plea of denial did not try to advise the complainant properly in solving the problem being faced by her. That apart the 2nd opposite party having received the legal notice under the original of Ex A.2 got issued by the complainant did not even try to give any reply. That itself amounts to an admission on the part of the 2nd opposite party besides the 1st opposite party in not rendering their service to the complainant which constitutes deficiency in service on their part. Therefore, we found that the complainant had clearly established her case against both the opposite parties and proved the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.



    POINT No: 2



    It is no doubt true that the cell phone in question is still in position of the complainant. But her case is that she is an housewife and her husband with a grate love and affection towards her, purchased the same in her name, who used the same for her daily needs with her husband and with her parents who are residing far away from her place and on account of the unbelievable and anti-consumer motive and due to negligent acts of the opposite parties in not effecting the repairs to the cell phone or replacement of the same, she suffered a lot of mental agony for which she also entitled for compensation, which is a fact clearly established by the complainant through the circumstances of the case on hand.

    In view of the said circumstances and for the reasons stated above, we found that the complainant had clearly established the deficiency in service as alleged by her.

    Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant can be compensated by granting a reasonable relief.

    The complainant requested this Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.7,300/- towards costs of the cell phone purchased by her under the cash bill/Ex A.1 together with interest from the date of complaint till its realization or to direct the opposite parties to replace the cell phone in question with new one. This is the case where the complainant purchased the cell phone in question a very long back ie., on 6-12-2007, if this Forum orders for replacement of the cell phone in question with new piece then the complainant is entitled for the new set of the same model which may or may not be available by the time of execution of the present order. If really similar model of the set is not available, again the complainant has to pursue her matter by way of further litigation. To avoid further litigation in the matter, we thought it better to give a direction to the opposite parties to pay the costs of the cell phone covered under Ex A.1 will meet the ends of justice besides a reasonable sum towards compensation for her mental agony. The points are answered accordingly.



    In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.7,300/-(Rupees seven thousands three hundred only) towards costs of the cell phone in question by receiving the cell phone from the complainant, besides a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and a further sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards costs of the complaint within 30 days from the date of due dispatch of free copy of this Order.

    Since a reasonable compensation is awarded, the subsequent interest over the costs of the cell phone is unwarranted.
  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    Anoop Alex,

    S/o Alexander,

    Elavungal House, Rajapuram Po, : Complainant

    Hosdurg Taluk.


    One-2 One Telecom,

    Near Juma Masjid, Busstand, : Opposite party

    Kanhangad

    ORDER

    Complainant Anoop Alex filed this complaint on the ground that the Nokia mobile phone No.1208 worth Rs.1700/- from opposite party’s shop on 22/2/08 became defective within 3 months. It was taken to opposite party for servicing. Opposite party returned the same after checkup. Again the defects recurred but on approach, opposite party refused to rectify the defects. Though a lawyer notice was caused, no reply was sent to the said notice. Hence the complaint claiming the replacement of the mobile phone with compensation and costs.



    2. Opposite party remained absent inspite of receipt of notice by registered post. Hence opposite party set exparte.

    3. Complainant Sri.Annop.filed affidavit in support of his case. Exts.A1 to A6 marked. Complainant heard and the documents perused carefully.

    4. Ext.A2, users manual guide show that the manufacturer of the Mobile phone M/s Nokia corporation has provided limited warranty to the Nokia Mobile Phone for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase.

    5. The complainant purchased the mobile phone on 22/2/08 as evident from Ext.A1, purchase bill. Of course the defects are occurred during the warranty period. Therefore the complainant is entitled either for the replacement of the mobile phone or for the refund of the price paid. Definitely a customer will put to severe mental agony if a brand new product shows signs of troubles within a shorter period of purchase. The non replacement of the mobile phone with a defect free one is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party .

    Therefore the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.1700/- that he collected from the complainant towards the purchase price of the mobile phone with a compensation of Rs.2000/- and a cost of Rs.1000/-. On receipt of the amount the complainant shall return the mobile phone to the opposite party and obtain the receipt. Had the opposite party got a case that it is the manufacturer who is liable to return the purchase price of the mobile phone, opposite party can recover the amount paid to the complainant from the manufacturer M/s Nokia Corporation through appropriate legal proceedings.
  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    Babu.K.V,

    Paini Veedu, Veenachery, Vellikkoth, } Complainant

    Ajanur.Po, Kasaragod.Dt. 671531.


    Owner,

    Mobile Park, Dain’s Arcade, } Opposite party.

    Opp: Bus Stand, Kanhangad.
    O R D E R

    The grievance of the complainant Babu K.V a service personnel of Indian Army, is that he purchased a Nokia 5310 Mobile phone from opposite party for Rs.8500/-. It showed signs of troubles like over heating of battery on the first day of purchase itself and within 6 days the mobile set became useless. On 24-03-09 the complainant entrusted it for service to opposite party. On 31-03-09 opposite party returned the mobile phone with a report that the handset is fluid logged. When the complainant enquired about this complaint he came to know that only in the event of opening the mobile phone there is chance for fluid logging and he has never committed the said mistake. The said defect was an inherent one. The leave he availed became vain since he constrained to visit the shop of opposite party frequently to enquire about the mobile phone. Therefore the complainant claiming the replacement of the mobile phone with a defect free mobile phone and a compensation of Rs.5000/- towards his loss, hardships and mental agony suffered.

    2. Opposite party remained absent inspite of receipt of notice issued through registered post. Hence opposite party was set exparte. On behalf of the complainant his authorized agent, his brother-in-law Shyam Babu adduced evidence as PW1 and Exts A1 to A3 marked. He was heard and documents perused carefully.

    3. Ext.A1 is the sales bill dated 13-03-2009. Ext.A2 in the service job sheet dated 24-3-09. Ext.A3 is the report rejecting the warranty service stating the reason of fluid logging.

    4. PW1 deposed that the mobile phone was defective on the first day of the purchase itself and its battery became weak within 6 days. It had the complaint of excess heating on the date of purchase itself It’s battery lost its recharging power within 6 days. He further deposed that the mobile phone was never opened by any one as it was having the warranty.

    5. The fact that the mobile phone become defective and the customer compelled to entrust the same for repair on the 8th day of purchase itself proves that the mobile phone was having manufacturing defect. A reasonable prudent man will never attempt to open a new mobile phone worth Rs.8500/- if defects were noted especially when it is having a warranty of service. Therefore it is clear that the mobile phone sold to the complainant was having inherent manufacturing defects and therefore the opposite party committed unfair trade practice by selling a defective mobile phone to the complainant. Of course a customer will be put to severe mental agony and suffering when a brand a new product shows the signs of defect on the first day of purchase itself.

    Therefore the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to return Rs.8500/- that he collected from the complainant towards the price of the mobile phone with a compensation of Rs.2500/- towards the mental agony and sufferings caused to the complainant with a cost of Rs.1500/-. On receipt of the said amount the complainant shall return the defective mobile phone to the opposite party and obtain the receipt Had the opposite party got a grievance that it is the manufacturer who has to pay the amount, then opposite party can recover the said amount paid to the complainant from the manufacturer of the mobile phone through appropriate legal proceedings.
  • Advocate.soniaAdvocate.sonia Senior Member
    edited September 2009
    Vijaykumar S/o Basawarajappa Patil,

    Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture,

    R/o Plot No.183, Mahaveer Nagar,

    Gulbarga.

    // Versus //

    OPPONENT:- 1. Universal Tele Communications India Pvt. Ltd.,

    Door No.7, Super Market,

    Gulbarga.

    2. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.,

    II Floor, Commercial Plaza,

    Radisson Hotel, N.H.8, Mahipalpur,

    New Delhi-110 037.

    3. Nokia Priority Dealer,

    Main Road,

    GULBARGA.

    : : O R D E R : :

    1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant by name Vijaykumar against the O.P.Nos.1 to 3 u/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the O.Ps. to replace the defective mobile instrument with a new one or to refund Rs.13,300/- with interest @ 18% and to award Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony with interest @ 18%.

    2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that;

    He purchased Nokia N-73 Music Black (2 GB) having No.353548022754783 mobile set from O.P.No.1 for sum of Rs.13,300/- vide invoice dated 11.7.2008, thereafter the mobile set was not functioning properly. He approached O.Ps., but they refused to attend the repairs within the warranty period. The said mobile set is with the O.P.No.1. The act of O.P. amounts to unfair trade practice, hence he filed this complaint praying to award compensation as prayed in the complaint.

    3. O.P.No.1 to 2 appeared in this case through their respective advocate, filed their Written version separately. Though notice served to O.P.No.3, he did not appear, hence he was placed exparte.

    4. O.P.No.1 contended in his written version by denying the allegations of complainant. According to him, he sold mobile set on 11.7.2008, but denied that the said mobile set was having manufacturing defect and approaching by complainant to him. He further stated that, he sells mobile sets, chargers and do not take the work of repair and will not give any warranty on the products sold. As per the provisions and conditions embodied in the receipt, the responsibility of warranty and repairs is of O.P.No.2 and 3. Complainant has not surrendered the mobile set as alleged in the complaint. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that, complaint may be dismissed with costs.

    5. O.P.No.2 contended in his written statement that, every handset device gives user manual wherein 12 months limited warranty conditions are mentioned. If accrues any defects/faults in its material, designs and workmanship, the remedy to the same would be provided at the Authorized Service Centre, free of charge, if the product is still within the specified warranty period. The complainant never approached the Authorised Service Centre with alleged fault in the handset as the complainant failed to adduce any documentary evidence showing that the said mobile set was having manufacturing defect. The complainant had never visited the Authorized Service Centre with specific faults in the handset as the same is not supported by any documentary evidence such as Job sheets. Hence, it is prayed that, complaint may be dismissed with costs.

    6. To prove the claim of complainant, himself was filed affidavit by way of evidence who examined as PW-1, document got marked Exh.P-1. O.P.No.1 also filed affidavit by way of cross of PW-1. Complainant side evidence closed. O.P.No.1 filed affidavit by way of evidence, who examined as RW-1, no documents are filed in support of his claim. O.P.No.2 has not filed any affidavit nor filed any documents. Complainant filed affidavit by way of cross of RW-1. O.Ps. side evidence closed.

    7. Heard the arguments from both sides.

    8. In view of the pleadings of the parties, now the points that arises for our consideration and determination are that,

    (1) Whether complainant proves that, he purchased the Nokia N-73 mobile set from O.P.No.1 for sum of Rs.13,300/- vide invoice dated 11.7.2008, thereafter the said mobile set not working properly, he approached O.Ps., but they refused to attend the repair work and thereby they found guilty under deficiency in their services?

    (2) Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint?

    (3) To what Order?

    9. Our findings on the above points are as under;

    (1) In Affirmative.

    (2) In Affirmative.

    (3) In view of the findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following;

    : : R E A S O N S : :

    10. Point No:1 and 2 :

    It is the case of the complainant that, he purchased the said mobile set from O.P.No.1 which is not disputed. Thereafter the said mobile set is not working within guarantee period, he approached O.P.No.1 and 2, they refused to attend repair works. The said mobile set is with O.P.No.1.

    11. In the instant case, O.Ps. contested the case through out the proceedings as, complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove his case. On going through the affidavit evidence of complainant, it reveals that, O.Ps. have not repaired the said mobile set. Now the said mobile set is with the O.Ps.

    Under the said circumstances, experts opinion is not necessary. But the O.Ps., keeping the mobile set with them prior to the filing of this case and during entire proceedings of this case, they ought to have repair the said mobile set, but they have not done any repairs, as such we are of the view that, O.Ps. are guilty under deficiency in service on their part. In view of facts and circumstances stated above, complainant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.13,300/- towards the cost of the mobile set. We have noticed the deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps., accordingly complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,000/- recoverable from O.P.Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally under the head of deficiency of service of these O.Ps., accordingly we answered Point No.1 and 2 in Affirmative.

    12. Complainant is also entitled to recover an amount of Rs.2,000/- from the O.Ps. jointly and severally towards cost of this complaint.

    13. Point No.3 :

    In view of the findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, we proceed to pass the following;

    : : O R D E R : :

    Complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. Complainant is entitled to recover total sum of Rs.17,300/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of realization of the full amount from the O.P.Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. O.P.Nos.1 to 3 are hereby given one month time from the date of this Order to pay the said sum to the complainant.
  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    Mr. Vijaya,

    S/o. Mudhara M.,

    Aged about 32 years,

    Krishnapura, 9th block,

    Site No.3, D.No.9 II,

    Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANT



    (Advocate: Sri. Deenanath Shetty).



    VERSUS



    1. The Authorized Signatory,

    M/s. Balaji Electronics,

    Opp: Classic Colour Lab,

    Balmatta Road, Hampankatta,

    Mangalore.



    (Opposite Party No.1: left).



    2. The Authorized Signatory,

    Nokia Care, Numerics Mobile Point,

    2 Essel Tower, Bunts Hostel,

    Mangalore.



    (Opposite Party No.2: Exparte).



    3. The Authorized Signatory,

    Managing Director,

    M/s. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.,

    (Registered Office), is housed in

    Commercial Plaza, N.H. 8,

    Hotel Radisson, Mahipalpur,

    Delhi.



    (Advocate for Opposite Party No.3: Sri.K.Nikesh Shetty).



    4. The Authorized Signatory,

    NOKIA CARE,

    Metro Telecom,

    Mart Chambers, Falnir Road,

    Mangalore – 575 001. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES


    The Complainant submits that, he had purchased Nokia mobile handset on 5.12.2006 from the 1st Opposite Party and paid a sum of Rs.10,700/- and Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are the authorized dealer of Nokia Handset and Opposite Party No.3 is a manufacturer and Opposite Party No.4 is the authorized service centre.

    The Complainant submits that, within a short period of 4 months of its purchase the above handset developed bothersome problem and handed over the handset for repair to Opposite Party No.4 as per service job sheet dated 19.4.2007, 8.5.2007, 23.5.2007, 13,7.2007 and 14.7.2007. In view of the above defects the Complainant filed a complaint before this Hon’ble Forum and the same has been registered as 307/2007 and the same was closed and thereafter preferred 2nd complaint which was numbered as 216/2008 which was settled in Lok Adalath held on 7.11.2008 and the Opposite Party No.1 agreed to replace the mobile set with a new one and the Complainant had returned the former mobile set as he had purchased from the Opposite Party No.1.

    The Complainant submits that the mobile set received from the Opposite Party No.3 also proved to be defective again and same could not be charged up and the Complainant was constrained to entrust the said mobile set to Opposite Party No.4 on 8.11.2008. It is contended that the handset supplied by the Opposite Parties are defective and filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Parties to refund a sum of Rs.12,700/- with interest at 10% from 6.12.2006 till the date of payment and further Rs.15,000/- claimed as compensation and cost of the litigations expenses.

    2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Party No.2 and 4 despite of serving notice neither appeared nor contested the case till this date and hence proceeded exparte. The acknowledgement placed before the FORA marked as court document No.1 and 2. The steps against Opposite Party No.1 was not taken and the claim against Opposite Party No.1 is not pressed by the Complainant.

    Opposite Party No.3 filed vakalath through his counsel one Nikesh Shetty, Advocate Mangalore but not filed any version nor led any evidence in this case.
    3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

    (i) Whether the Complainant proves that the mobile handset replaced by the Opposite Party No.3 in complaint No.216/08 with fresh warranty is proved to be defective?

    (ii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

    (iii) What order?

    4. In support of the complaint, Mr.Vijaya (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced ten (10) documents as listed in the annexure. Opposite Parties not filed version and counter affidavit. We have heard and perused the pleadings, documents and evidence placed before the Hon'ble Forum by the Complainant and answer the points are as follows: Point No.(i): Affirmative.

    Point No.(ii) and (iii): As per the final order.

    REASONS

    5. Point No. (i) to (iii):

    It is not in dispute that the Complainant purchased a mobile handset of Nokia Company Model 6125 on 8.12.2006 from the 1st Opposite Party as per tax invoice bearing No.5845 for Rs.10,700/- (as per document No.1). It is also not disputed that the above handset developed problem and handed over the set for repair to Opposite Party No.4 as per service job sheet dated 19.4.2007, 8.7.2007, 23.5.2007, 13.7.2007 and 14.7.2007. In view of the above defects the Complainant filed a complaint before this Hon'ble Forum and the same has been registered as 307/07 and the same was closed and thereafter preferred 2nd complaint which was numbered as 216/2008 which was settled in Lok Adalat held on 7.11.2008 and Opposite Party No.1 replaced the mobile set with a new one and the Complainant had returned the former mobile set to the Opposite Party No.1.

    Now the allegation of the Complainant is that, the handset replaced by the Opposite Party No.1 has inherent defect that the body of the mobile set failed to receive electrical charge consequently the same could not be charged up. When the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.4 and the Opposite Party No.4 appraised that the handset required to be sent their main authorized concern in Bangalore and it requires to be retained for the purpose of detecting more than 60 days and further told by the Opposite Party No.4 that they could not extend any guarantee as to rectifying the inherent defects existing in the mobile set.

    In order to prove the case of the Complainant, the Complainant relied document No.1 to 10. On careful scrutiny of the documents produced by the Complainant before the FORA it is proved that the Complainant admittedly purchased mobile handset on 5.12.2006 as per document No.1 and subsequently the above handset developed inherent defects and the Complainant filed the complaint before this Hon'ble Forum. In complaint No.216/2008 the matter was settled in adalat on 7.11.2008 by replacing the mobile handset bearing model No.5310 to the Complainant as per document No.10.

    The memo filed by the parties in complaint No.216/08 produced before the FORA in order to prove the same. The service job sheet dated 10.11.2008 i.e., document No.9 produced by the Complainant reveals that the replaced mobile handset bearing model No.5310 has a fault of enhancement charging/battery. From the above service job sheet it is proved again that the replaced handset also developed certain problem within two days from the date of replacement.

    From the above set of facts, it is proved that the above handset given for repair to the Opposite Party No.4 and the problems noticed within two days from the date of replacement after settling the matter in dispute in complaint No.216/2008. It appears on record that, the above complaint was filed on 16.01.2009 before this Hon'ble Forum i.e., after two months from the above settlement in complaint No.216/2008.

    It is a settled position that, a person purchases a new handset only for his use and not to suffer the inconvenience of repeated visits to the workshop and frequent deprivation of the use of the handset due to such snags. Similarly in the present case, the Complainant purchased the handset for Rs.10,700/- initially and the same has been proved to be defective and thereafter the Complainant came up with the complaint before this FORA and ultimately in complaint No.216/2008 the parties were settled the matter by replacing the new mobile handset before the adalat held on 7.11.2008 by filing a joint memo. But the same set again proved to be defective, it shows the quality and standard of manufacturing of the replaced product by the Opposite Parties and the handset supplied by the Opposite Parties has some fault and not upto the standard.

    In view of the aforementioned discussions, we are of the considered opinion that replaced handset also proved to be defective. Under such circumstances, once again giving direction to replace the handset will not meet the ends of justice. Hence we hereby direct the Opposite Party No.1 and 3 to refund the entire amount of Rs.10,700/- to the Complainant. At the same time the Complainant is hereby directed to return the entire handset to the Opposite Parties along with accessories. And further Rs.2,000/- awarded as compensation for the inconvenience and the harassment caused to the Complainant and Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

    There is no deficiency of service proved against Opposite Party No.2 and 4. Hence complaint against Opposite Party No.2 and 4 is hereby dismissed.

    6. In the result, we pass the following:


    ORDER

    The complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No.1 and 3 are hereby directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.10,700/- by taking back the old handset with accessories from the Complainant. And further Rs.2,000/- awarded as compensation and Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited September 2009
    S.C.Patil

    77, Govindappa Road,

    Basavanagudi,

    Bangalore – 560 004.

    …. Complainant.

    V/s



    01. NOKIA CARE,

    # 652, 11th Main Road,

    1st Floor, 4th Block Jayanagar,

    Bangalore – 560 011.

    Tel No.4121 – 1151.



    02. The Care Manager

    NOKIA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

    5F, Tower A & B, Cybergreen,

    DLF Cyber City, Sector 25A,

    Gurgaon – 122 002.

    HARYANA.

    …. Opposite Parties



    -: ORDER:-



    This complaint is for a direction to the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.9,250/- being the price of the MOBILE HANDSET purchased by the complainant.

    2. The case of the complainant is as under:-



    The complainant purchased MOBILE PHONE MODEL NOKIA 5310 – Xpress Music through an authorized Nokia dealer at Gandhi Bazar Main Road, Basavanagudi on 11/09/2008. Some time after the purchase, he noticed the following problems in the MOBILE HANDSET.

    01. Missed calls are not registered on the screen,

    02. Telephone starts flashing after a incoming call is disconnected,

    03. The alarm does not function properly, and

    04. The volume at the maximum setting is very feeble can be hardly heard in the office.



    He gave the handset to Opposite Party No.1 – the authorized service center for repairs on two occasions namely 04/11/2008 and 12/11/2008. On both the occasions, the service center employee assured him that the defects are attended to. But the same problems still persisted. He also sent a complaint to Opposite Party No.2 - the manufacture of the MOBILE HANDSET on 22/12/2008, 26/12/2008 and 05/01/2009, but did not receive any response. Hence, the complaint.



    3. In the version, the contention of Opposite Party No.1 – the authorized service center is as under:-



    They received the MOBILE HANDSET from the complainant on 04/11/2008 for repairs. The reported complaints were “Switchess off, Ringtone Problem, Alarm not working & system slow. The problems were rectified and the handset was returned to the complainant in good working condition. After few days, the complainant again approached them with the problem “Phone restarts and when goes to alarm option automatically keypad locks and not showing missed call indication”.


    The handset was taken for repairs, the same was checked and found that the handset was working fine and accordingly it was delivered to the complainant. A few days thereafter they received complaint from the Customer Care (Care Line) that the Customer is not satisfied with the service and wants to go legally. Therefore, they called the customer over phone to solve the issue and informed that they are ready to replace the new handset, but the complainant refused to speak with them in that regard. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.



    4. On service of notice, Opposite Party No.2 – the manufacture of the handset appeared through counsel, but in spite of sufficient time granted failed to file the version and to participate in the proceedings.



    5. In support of the respective contentions, the complainant and Opposite Party No.1 have filed affidavits. We have heard the arguments on both side.



    6. The points for consideration are:-

    1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?



    2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?



    Point No.(1) : In the Affirmative

    Point No.(2) : As per final order,

    for the following:-



    -:REASONS:-

    7. The fact that the complainant had purchased the NOKIA MOBILE HANDSET on 11/09/2008 and within about two months thereafter he had given the handset to Opposite Party for repairs on 04/11/2008 and 12/11/2008 is not denied. It is the contention of the complainant that even though the handset was given to Opposite Party No.1 for repairs on two occasions, the same problems are still persisting in the mobile handset and therefore the defects are not rectified. As against this, the contention of Opposite Party No.1 is that on both the occasions all the problems in the handset were attended to and the mobile handset was returned to the complainant in good working condition.


    If that is so, there was no reason for the complainant to approach the manufacturer of the mobile handset namely Opposite Party No.2 with the complaint dated 22/12/2008 making the same allegations as alleged in the complaint. It is also admitted by Opposite Party No.1 that after the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 the manufacturer through the complaint dated 22/12/2008 they were informed about the same and thereupon they called upon the complainant to solve the issue and also informed that they are ready to replace the handset, but the customer refused to speak with them in that regard.


    This admission on the part of the Opposite Party makes it clear that even the manufacturer admits the defects in the handset and therefore offered to replace the same with a new one. If the Opposite Parties are ready to replace the mobile handset purchased by the complainant with a new handset, the complainant is not entitled to seek refund of the price paid for the mobile handset. Therefore, in our opinion, it is just and proper to direct Opposite Parties to replace the mobile handset purchased by the complainant with a new defect free handset. In the result, we pass the following:-

    -:ORDER:-

    1. The complaint is ALLOWED.
    2. The Opposite Parties are directed to replace the MOBILE PHONE purchased by the complainant with a new defect free MOBILE PHONE and pay costs of Rs.1,000/-.
    3. Compliance of this order shall be made within eight weeks from the date of communication.
    4. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
    5. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 09th Day of JULY 2009.
  • edited September 2009
    I want my cell phone replacement,
    My First Job Sheet No. 145433527/090826/13 Dated 26.08.09 and second Job Sheet No. is 145433527/090928/11. Date 28.09.09

    I bought a Nokia 7610 Supernova phone from M.K. Enterprises, Moti Bagh, New Delhi, ESN/ EMEI No. is 359331026289898. Purchase Date 17-07-2009, After using for 1-2 Week I found that my handset was hanging frequently then on one day its keypad was not working, Camera was not working properly, then on 26/07/2009 I visited their service center at K N Services, Corner Market, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, After repair. I got the phone and when checked, found that they have nothing, means same problem persist so far. And again I submitted my phone Dated 28.09.09, but I don’t want repair, I want only replacement,
    I have expand too much for this mobile and I don't expect this kind of service from NOKIA, now I don't want to give it again to service center and want my cell phone replaced either with the same set or, if this kind of problem is there with all 7610 , then replace it with other Nokia set.

    I am also planning for registering complaint in Consumer court regarding the services.

    Thanks,
    Pradeep Arya
    9310041449

    Pls Sir, Help Me
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited September 2009
    Sh.Ravinder Guleria son of Sh. Megh Singh Guleria resident of village Manyana, Post Office Tilli, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.

    …Complainant



    V/S



    1. Divyam Communication Shop No.52/53 Indira

    Market Mandi Town, District Mandi, H.P. through its proprietor

    2. India Nokia Centre c/o Nokia India Pvt Ltd J-4

    Block Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area Delhi 30303838 through its Managing Director .












    ORDER.

    This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite parties . Brief facts of the complaint as set up by the complainant are that he purchased a Nokia 5310 Mobile set bearing IMEI No. 358653014905586 vide cash memo No.6699 on 11-4-2008 for Rs.8950/- from the opposite party No.1 being dealer of the opposite party No.2.


    The mobile set was provided warranty of one year as per cash memo Annexure C-1. After 15 days from the purchase of the set in question, it turned out of order and this fact was brought to the notice of the opposite party No.1 who carried out some repair and told that the mobile set is having some inherent manufacturing defect and will be replaced with new one after negotiation with the opposite party No.2. The complainant alleged that the mobile set again turned out of order on various occasions and same was repaired and was assured to replace the same . The complainant served the opposite parties with legal notice requesting to replace the mobile set in question but neither the notice was responded nor mobile replaced .


    The complainant further alleged that he visited the opposite party No.1 on 21-4-2009 and asked to do the needful then opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to hand over the set to them for repair and orally told that Rs.1000/- would be charged for repair and when he refused to pay repair charges by saying that it covers under warranty then he was told that the warranty had already expired on 11-4-2009. The complainant averred that he was under the impression that he had purchased the mobile on 11-5-2008 and warranty will expire on 11-5-2009 and for this reason there is delay of ten days in filing the complaint. With these allegations the complainant had sought direction to the opposite parties to replace the mobile had set with new one of same price or refund Rs.8950/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 11-4-2008 till payment and also to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation apart from costs of litigation.

    2. The opposite parties were duly served but failed to contest the complaint and were proceeded against exparte

    3. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record. The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a Nokia mobile phone of model No.5310 bearing IMIE No.358653014905586 from the opposite party No.1 vide cash memo No.6698 dated 11-4-2008 in the sum of Rs.8950/- but the same turned out of order after 15 days of the purchase of the set .The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and this fact was brought to its notice who carried out some repair and told that the set was having inherent manufacturing defect and would be replaced with new one after negotiating with the opposite party No.2. The mobile set developed defects time and again and every time the complainant was assured to replace the same but in vain.


    The complainant also alleged that he had served the opposite parties with legal notice but the same was also not responded. The complainant in support of his complaint has filed photocopy of cash memo Annexure C-1 which shows that the set in question was purchased in the sum of Rs.8950/- from the opposite party No.1. Copy of legal notice Annexure C-2 alongwith receipts Annexure C-3 had also been tendered in evidence which also reflect that the opposite parties were duly apprised about the defect in the mobile set but no action was taken . Not only this , the complainant had also adduced in evidence photocopy of the receipt given by the opposite party No.1 on account of receipt of mobile set for repair which is Annexure C-4 .The complainant has also filed his own affidavit by way of evidence .


    The opposite parties have failed to contest the complaint and were proceeded against exparte which shows that they have nothing to say in the matter except to admit the averments made in the complaint. As discussed above, the opposite parties have not contested the complaint , therefore , we have no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant which is duly supported by means of affidavit that the set is defective one and it has developed defect during the warranty period and the opposite parties have failed to repair it. The complainant has proved that the set in question has been purchased by him from the opposite party No.1 who is dealer of opposite party No.2. Therefore , we hold that the opposite parties are liable to replace the set with new one and also to compensate the complainant on account of harassment suffered by the complainant .

    4 In view of above discussion , the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed either to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant or refund its price i.e. Rs.8950/ - within a period of one month from today . The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.500/- on account of compensation for harassment and Rs.500/- as costs of complaint.

    10 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.

    11 File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited September 2009
    Sukhwinder Singh son of Sh. Assa Singh, resident of 126, Industrial Area-A, ,Ludhiana. Ludhiana.

    (Complainant)

    Vs.



    1. M/s Dhawan Electronics, Shop No.14, Oswal Market, Suffian Bagh Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Partner /prop. Officer Incharge.



    2. M/s Mobile Super Market, Re-Distributors & Stockists: Nokia India ltd., Regd. office: 134, new Model Town, Ludhiana-2, through its partner/Prop.

    Second Address: M/s mobile Super Market, Re-Distributors & Stockists: Nokia India Ltd. Showroom: 3073-Malhar Road, Ludhiana-1, through its partner/Prop.



    3. M/s Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Commercial Plaza, Radisson Hotel, NH-8, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-37 through its Manager.



    (Opposite parties)






    O R D E R



    1. Complainant purchased Nokia Mobile hand set model no. 1208 Black, IMEI No.358097013700632 vide bill no.82 dated 19.12.2007 from opposite party no.1 for Rs.2900/-. After purchase, complainant was astonished to know that maximum retail price of the mobile set was Rs.2345/-. Opposite party no.1 by resorting to unfair trade practice, charged him Rs.2900/-. Thereafter, in presence of his friend Sh. Baljit Singh requested to opposite party no.1 to refund excess price charged but he abused him in defamatory language. Such act of opposite party caused him agony, harassment and loss of money. Also served legal notice to all the opposite parties but to no effect. Therefore, for such deficiency in service in, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- from opposite parties and also claimed refund of excess amount of Rs.555/- with 18% interest per annum.

    2. Opposite party no.1 in reply averred that complainant has filed false claim on fabricated allegations. Mobile set was purchased by the complainant after perusing maximum retail price (MRP) printed on mobile box. Cost of the mobile set was Rs. 2345/- and balance was charged for availing free Airtel prepaid sim card with life time validity. This offer was jointly made from Airtel and Nokia. Mobile set was also available without scheme. But the complainant opted to purchase the mobile hand set along with scheme. So, they never resorted to unfair trade practice and the complainant was not harassed nor entitled for any compensation or relief.

    3. Opposite party no.2-distributor of mobile hand set vide separate reply claimed that complainant never purchased mobile set from them nor got it repaired against any consideration, so, complaint against them is not maintainable and the same being frivolous deserves to be dismissed. Rest all the allegations stand denied by them for want of knowledge.

    4. Defence of opposite party no.3 was struck off when failed to file written reply.

    5. In order to prove their respective versions, parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

    6. We have heard the arguments addressed by ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

    7. Sole question to be determined is whether opposite party no.1 resorted to unfair trade practice by charging Rs. 555/- in excess than MRP (maximum retail price) printed on the mobile box.? Because, opposite party no.1 has admitted charging that amount from the complainant. But defence is that he never resorted to unfair trade practice, as in addition to price of the hand set, cost of new SIM amounting to Rs.555/- was charged under scheme of Airtel Prepaid Sim Card with life time validity.

    8. Therefore, we are required to adjudge and conclude whether under the scheme jointly formulated by Nokia and Airtel, complainant was required to pay activation charges, in addition to price of the hand set. Complainant in support of his plea has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and OP-1 in rebuttal has filed affidavit RA/1. Though opposite party no.2 through Sh. Jaspal Singh has also filed affidavit RW2/A to the affect that there is no deficiency in service on their part and they have been unnecessarily impleaded. At this stage, we may say that plea of opposite party no.2 appears to be plausible. As service centre of manufacturer and the firm was impleaded without any necessity nor any deficiency on their part is alleged. No compensation from them is claimed.

    9. As in respective affidavits, both the complainant and opposite party no.1 have taken different stand, so, the dispute deserves to be settled in the light of documentary evidence on record.

    10. As per invoice Ex.C.1 dated 19.12.2007 opposite party no.1 received Rs.2900/- as cost of Nokia 1208 Black mobile hand set. He no where in said invoice mentioned that the cost so received, include price of SIM ( mobile number 9878859594) assigned to purchased mobile set of the complainant. Whereas Ex, C.2, print of mobile box clearly reflects that all India price of the mobile set was Rs.2349/- inclusive of all taxes. The same handset was purchased by the complainant under the scheme jointly floated by Nokia and Airtel and photocopy of such scheme is Ex.C.5. It is mentioned in this copy Ex.C.5 that “free airtel prepaid sim card with life time validity.”

    11. So, it appears that under the scheme, on purchase of Nokia mobile set no.1208, a customer was made entitled to free Airtel prepaid sim card. If sim card was made available free, it is not digestible or acceptable that despite such offer vendor of mobile hand set could have charged the customer for activation charges or cost of SIM card. Because, such aspect could have damaged and infringed spirit of offer of providing free Airtel prepaid sim card with life time validity. Once on purchase of mobile set, free pre paid sim is provided, it shall means that it is provided free of costs or charges. This offer was subject to following condition:

    “Bundle offer benefits shall be withdrawn if the SIM or handset is used separately. The company also reserves the right to take appropriate legal action in such cases.”



    This offer was available till lasting stock and offer was not valid if bundled sim is purchased without handset.

    12. It means, to promote the sale of mobile phones as well as to attract more Airtel consumers, both the Companies had entered into an agreement to boost their business. Consequently, when sim card of the Airtel was provided free of cost, it does not now lie in the mouth of opposite party no.1 to say that price of the sim card was received by charging Rs.555/- with life time validity. This plea goes against the spirit of scheme jointly floated by Airtel and Nokia.

    13. In such circumstances, we believe the claim of the complainant that opposite party no.1 resorted to unfair trade practice by charging extra amount of Rs.555/- from him while selling the mobile hand set.

    14. As a result of the discussions, apparent that opposite party no.1 is proved to have resorted to unfair trade practice by cheating and extracting extra money of Rs.555/- from complainant while selling mobile set worth Rs.2345/- by charging him Rs.2900/-. Therefore, complaint allowed and opposite party no.1 is directed to refund Rs.555/- to the complainant with interest @9% per annum from the date of sale of the mobile hand set i.e. 19.12.2007 till payment and for resorting to unfair trade practice ordered to pay compensation of Rs.2500/-(Rs. Two Thousands and Five Hundreds only) and litigation costs assessed at Rs.1500/-(Rs. One Thousand and Five Hundred only) Compliance of the order be made within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order, which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.
  • edited September 2009
    Hi,

    i bought mobile in two days before the mobile store in kodambakkam.

    The mobile facing main screen touch is not working .what can i do .Kindly give proper reason.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Thiru K. Selvaraj,

    S/o. Kuppusamy,

    Theerthampalayam,

    Manapalli Post,

    Paramathi-Velur Taluk,

    Namakkal District. .. Complainant



    /versus/

    Phonicks,

    Nokia Priority Dealer,

    by its Power of Salesman,

    224, Main Road,

    Near Manikoondu,

    Namakkal. … Opposite party







    ORDER





    1. The crux of the complaint is:-

    The complainant on 12.03.2007 purchased a Nokia mobile phone Model No.6070 for Rs.5,000/- from the opposite party vide receipt bearing No.2133. The said mobile phone became defective and on 14.05.2007 the complainant reported the same to the opposite party who received the same for rectification of the same and after one month they gave the same assuring that the defect has been rectified. Again within a week again the said mobile phone’s loud speaker became defective on 16.06.2007 the same was handed over to the opposite party 2nd time for rectifying the defect. The opposite party returned the phone after one week stating that the defect has been rectified.


    But within 4 days the same problem surfaced and again on 25.06.2007 the mobile phone was handed over to the opposite party to rectify the defects. The opposite party after 25 days returned the mobile phone assuring that the defects has been rectified. But the defects was not rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant hence he requested the opposite party to take back the mobile and return the amount paid by him. The Complainant hence handed over the mobile to the Opposite Party on 13.08.2007 and receipt to the effect was issued by the Opposite party.


    At the same time the opposite party took back all the 3 receipts earlier issued by them at the time of rectifying the defects. The cost of the mobile phone was not returned by the opposite party. The complainant then sent a lawyer notice but in vain. The Complainant was not able to use his mobile after paying Rs.5,000/-to the opposite party and as a result he had suffered mental agony. The complainant had alleged that the opposite party has sold defective mobile phone to him and has lodged this complaint for return of the cost of mobile phone, compensation, cost etc.

    2. The Complainant to prove his case has filed proof affidavit along with 4 documents and the same has been marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.

    3. The point for consideration is:-

    Whether the opposite party has sold defective mobile phone

    to the complainant and if so to what relief the complainant

    is entitled for?

    4. POINT:- The complainant on 12.03.2007 purchased a Nokia mobile phone Model No.6070 for Rs.5,000/- from the opposite party vide receipt bearing No.2133. The Complainant to prove the same has produced and placed before us the cash receipt issued by the Opposite Party as Ex.A1. The said mobile phone became defective and on 14.05.2007 the Complainant reported the same to the Opposite Party who received the same for rectification of the same and after one month they gave the same assuring that the defect has been rectified. Again within a week again the said mobile phone’s loud speaker became defective on 16.06.2007 the same was handed over to the opposite party 2nd time for rectifying the defect. The opposite party returned the phone after one week stating that the defect has been rectified. But within 4 days the same problem surfaced and again on 25.06.2007 the mobile phone was handed over to the Opposite Party to rectify the defects. The opposite party after 25 days returned the mobile phone assuring that the defects has been rectified.


    The Complainant has not produced and placed before us any documentary evidence to support that the mobile was handed over to the opposite party for rectifying the defects thrice. But the defects was not rectified by the opposite party to the satisfaction of the complainant hence he requested the opposite party to take back the mobile and return the amount paid by him. The Complainant hence handed over the mobile to the Opposite Party on 12.08.2007 and receipt to the effect was issued by the opposite party. The said receipt has been produced and marked as Ex.A2 by the complainant. A perusal of the Ex.A2 establishes that the mobile was defective. The cost of the mobile phone was not returned by the opposite party.


    The complainant has issued lawyer notice and the opposite party has received the same and no reply was sent by the opposite party. The complainant has produced the lawyer notice and the acknowledgement card as Ex.A3 and Ex.A4. The purchased of mobile phone and the subsequent defects has been established by the Complainant through documentary evidences. It can be evidence from Ex.A2 that mobile phone is lying with the opposite party. In the above circumstances we have no hesitation to hold that the opposite party has sold defective mobile phone to the Complainant.


    Further the opposite party has take back the mobile phone and has neither replaced the same with brand new mobile phone or returned the cost of the mobile phone paid by the Complainant. The act of the opposite party is deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice. The complainant had surrendered the mobile phone to the opposite party and as such he would not able to use his mobile after paying Rs.5,000/- to the opposite party and this would have definitely caused mental agony to the complainant and as such the complainant is entitled for compensation.

    6. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.5,000/- paid to the complainant for the mobile phone. Further the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the complaint. Time for payment one month from the date of this order.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Sri Sujit Kumar Sarkar,

    2/57A, Sree Colony, Regent Estate,

    Kolkata-700092.
    Complainant

    ---Verses---

    1) Nokia Care,

    37, Shakespeare Sarani,

    Kolkata-700017. ---- Opposite Party








    The complainant filed this petition u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging the deficiency of service caused by the o.ps. by not repairing the mobile hand set of Nokia make, model no.32308 IMEI no.355694009547671, purchased by him on 30.3.06 on payment of Rs.9800/- from o.p. no.2. After purchase of the same, within 5 ½ month the mobile set went out of order and he took it to the o.p.no.1, Nokia Care, on 19.9.06, which was returned back to him on 1.11.06 without doing any repairing work as it appears in the jobsheet attached with the complaint/petition. Although in the jobsheet, in the column ‘Repaired done’, the remark is ‘Module Tempered Return without Repair’. As the set was within the warranty period, the complainant took it to the o.p. no.1 for necessary repairing work. But o.p. no.1 refused to do that on the plea that the set was tampered, which according to the complainant is totally false, since the set was within the warranty period, he had not given it to anywhere else other than the Nokia Authorized Service Centre, i.e. o.p. no.1.


    After that, the set was taken to o.p. no.2 Pentagon Centre for necessary repairing work. But o.p. no.2 also refused to do anything. Then the complainant lodged a complaint with Consumer Forum, Bhavani Bhawan and on their persuasion, o.p. no.2 repaired the set twice with an extended warranty but both the times the hand set stopped working within few hours. And finding no other alternatives, the complainant filed this petition praying for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to replace the set by a set of similar value and quality, to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the harassment and inconvenience caused to him due to deficiency of service on the part of the o.ps. along with cost of proceedings. Notices were served upon the o.ps. None appeared. No w/v was filed by either of the o.ps.

    Decision with reasons :

    By purchasing a mobile hand set, the complainant becomes a consumer of o.p. nos.1 and 2. O.p. no.1, Nokia Care did not repair the hand set in spite of the fact that the set was within the warranty period. And from the ‘Service Jobsheet’ dt.19.9.06 given by o.p. no.2, it appears that the endorsement of ‘Set Tampered’ was made on 25.10.06, although any noting of any sort tampering in the set should have been noticed and endorsed on the very day when it was given for repairing, i.e. on 19.9.06. and under the column ‘Reported Fault’, it is written ‘Power : Doesn’t Switch On’. And the complainant was asked to take the delivery of the set after ten days. But after ten days, o.p. no.2 took a further time to repair the same, and even at that point of time, o.p. no.2 never told the complainant that the set was tampered.


    They mentioned it on the jobsheet only on 25.10.06 while returning it to the complain ant without doing any repairing work. Here, the o.p. no.2 is found guilty with malafide intension to harass the complainant. Moreover, no written version is filed by either of the o.ps. Hence, there is nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. And o.p. no.1 also did not render their services to the complainant and o.p. no.1 was found deficient in providing service by not repairing the mobile set, which went out of order within 5 ½ months of its purchase. Accordingly, we hold both the o.ps. are deficient in providing service to the complainant.

    Hence,

    Ordered,

    That the o.p. no.2 is directed to replace the mobile hand set in question of similar value i.e. of Rs.9800/- (Rupees nine thousand eight hundred) only and of same and similar quality on receipt of defective mobile hand set in question and o.p. no.1 and o.p. no.2 jointly and severally are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only along with a litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only. The o.ps. are directed to comply the order within one month from the date of communication of this order, in default, it will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization. Fees paid are correct.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Ramesh Kumar son of late Sh. Dina Nath resident of House No. 280/2 Purani Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.





    …Complainant

    V/S

    Chandan Kumar Prop. Chandan Electronics, authorized Dealer of Nokia, Seri Bazar, Mandi, Mandi District Mandi, H.P.







    …..Opposite party




    ORDER.




    This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite party. The case as set out by the complainant in the complaint is that he purchased a mobile hand set i.e. Nokia -2626 F Red IMEII-356395022758282 on 23-12-2008 in the sum of Rs.2200/- from the opposite party on 23-12-2008 as per cash memo No.3482. The complainant alleged that after a week of purchase of the said mobile handset developed manufacturing defect as it got switched off at its own without operating the said handset and the complainant has been deprived of from various important calls as the complainant is the contractor who deals in painting . The complainant further averred that he visited the opposite party on 10-1-2009 and showed the hand set and apprised the manufacturing defect in it and he was told to hand over the set to the opposite party as the same would be repaired . The set was repaired and returned to the complainant on 24-1-2009 and was told that the defect has been removed .


    The complainant further alleged that after 7-8 days same defects developed and hand set was shown to the opposite party for repair but despite best efforts the manufacturing defect could not be removed and set was returned . The complainant further alleged the opposite party was asked either to repair the mobile hand set or to exchange the same but of no avail . It has also been averred that the opposite party has not removed the defect which amounts to deficiency in service .With these allegations the complainant had prayed that the opposite party be directed either to exchange the mobile handset or to pay Rs.2200/- the cost of mobile with up to date interest at the rate of 9% . Apart from this , Rs.5000/- has been claimed on account of mental torture , agony and loss . Cost of complaint has also been claimed

    2 The opposite party was issued notice but failed to contest the complaint and was proceeded against exparte on 30-3-2009.

    3. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the entire record. The complainant in support of the allegations made in the complaint had placed on record invoice / bill/ cash memo dated 23-12-2008 Annexure C-1. The perusal of the same shows that mobile set F Red with IMEII-356395022758282 was purchased by the complainant in the sum of Rs.2200/- from the opposite party. During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant has applied permission to examine the mobile hand set from expert which was allowed . The complainant got the set examined from Sahil Communication who in his report on record has held as under:-

    “I have inspected the above Nokia 2626 mobile which is switching off after some time as per order of this ld. Forum and found that battery and software of mobile are in proper working . But power IC of mobile is not working properly and not repairable which is due to manufacturing defect.”



    Not only this the complainant in support of his complaint has also filed his own affidavit by way of evidence .The opposite party has failed to contest the complaint and was proceeded against exparte which shows that he has nothing to say in the matter except to admit the averments made in the complaint. As discussed above, the opposite party has not contested the complaint , therefore , we have no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant which is duly supported by means of his affidavit and report of expert that the set is defective one as the IC is defective which according to expert is manufacturing defect. . The cash memo further shows that the set in question was purchased on 23-12-2008 and the same had developed defects within the warranty period. Therefore , we hold that the mobile set sold to the complainant by the opposite party is defective . The opposite party is liable either to replace the set with new one or refund its price and also to compensate the complainant on account of harassment suffered by the him as well as for deficiency in service .

    4 In view of above discussion , the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed either to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund its price i.e. Rs.2200/- within a period of one month from today . The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.500/- on account of compensation for harassment and Rs.500/- as costs of complaint.



    5 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as



    per Rules.



    6 File, after due completion be consigned to the Record
Sign In or Register to comment.