Complaint filed on: 29-03-2010 <br /> Disposed on: 13-08-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.691/2010<br /> DATED THIS THE 13th AUGUST 2010<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> Complainant: - <br /> Jaganmohan Vemu <br /> S/o. V.S.Veereswara Sastry, <br /> Aged about 28 years, <br /> R/o. 599, 27th main, 2nd Stage, <br /> BTM layout, Bangalore-76 <br /> <br /> V/s<br /> Opposite parties: - <br /> 1. The Manager, Nokia Priority <br /> Dealer, # 6 & 7, Akshaya <br /> Complex, 16th Main Road, <br /> BTM Layout, 2nd Stage, <br /> Bangalore-76<br /> 2. The Manager, Mobile Care <br /> # 808, 7th Cross, <br /> BTM 2nd Stage, Bangalore <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> Smt.Anita Shivakumar.K., Member<br /> <br /> The brief facts of the grievance of the complainant are that the complainant had purchased a Nokia N-73 IMEI bearing No.355718028888194 on 13-5-2009 from OP-1 on payment of Rs.12,900/-. OP -1 has issued receipt for the same. OP-1 has given assurance of one year warranty from the date of purchase. Within one week of purchase, complainant observed the defect in the mobile which was not functioning properly and he asked for replacement with new set. Thereafter complainant approached OP-2 who is service provider for the said problem. OP-2 accepted the mobile and rectified the mobile returned it after 3 months from the date of receiving of defective mobile. Complainant facing same problem with replaced mobile and he is fed with the products of Nokia. Complainant alleged that the staff of OP-2 were behaved rude with him and treating him badly and mode fun of the complainant and alleged that OP-2 has not issued any job card during it has handed over for phone to him. Hence, complainant approached this forum to direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs.12,900/- cost and other reliefs fit under the facts of the case. <br /> <br /> 2. Notice sent to OP’s through RPAD which were duly served on the Ops. On the date of appearance OP-1 called out, he was absent. Hence he is set exparte. OP-2 appeared in person.<br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry, OP-2 filed his affidavit evidence without filing statement of objections. Complainant filed along with copy of receipt and job sheet issued on 25-7-2009. Complainant has not filed his affidavit. Perused the records and heard the arguments. <br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions the following points for determination case.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in not providing replacement and misbehaved with the complainant. <br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> 1. Point No.1: In the negative <br /> 2. Point No.2: See the final order <br /> <br /> REASONS:<br /> <br /> 6. Complainant purchased a mobile hand set with 1st OP who is dealer of Nokia and had issued receipt for the same dated 13-6-2009. Within one weeks time complainant faced problem in the mobile set as it was not functioning properly. Complainant requested OP to replace it with new hand set. OP-2 accepted mobile to rectify and the same has been rectified and returned after 3 months. As according to Job sheet issued by OP-2 dated 25-7-2009, there is mentioned the problem of hanging, it will get switch of while removing battery, data loss were rectified and given back to the complainant. <br /> <br /> 7. After acceptance of mobile by the complainant, he again found same problem continued with the mobile which is not proved. Even complainant did not bring it to the notice to OP-2 regarding re-occurrence of problem. In this regard OP-2 submitted in his affidavit that the problem persisted in the mobile is not aware to OP-2 and if it is so OP-2 is ready to rectify it. Till date complainant had not come to service centre, means it is assured that hand set is working fine. OP-2 also submitted that he and his staff never misbehaved and humiliated to customers. <br /> <br /> 8. Complainant accepted the mobile after rectification but not proved it is again in defective condition and also complainant did not come and submit his affidavit evidence to prove his grievance. He could not able to prove the misbehaviors of OP-2. Therefore, complainant is not entitled to get compensation of Rs.12,900/- and other reliefs. Hence, point No.1 in negative, accordingly we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 13th August 2010.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br />