BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Tuesday, 18th March 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 25/ 2013
Nazeer Ahmad Khan, S/o Mohammad Haseem Khan,
32 years, D.No. 7/81, Chilakalabavi, Kadapa. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. Authorized Signatory, Nokia Care,
Authorized Service Center, A.N.C. Code : 462-465550,
Sudha Mobils, Shop No. 18, 19,
New Municipal Complex, R.M. Kadapa.
2. Manager, Big-C Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., 4/487,
Kotireddy Street, Nagarajupet, Kadapa.
Ph. No. 9985874888. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 13-3-2014 and perusing complaint and other material papers on record and on hearing the arguments of complainant as in person and O.P.1 called absent and set exparte on 12-3-2014 and O.P.2 appeared as in person and the matter is having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri M.V.R. Sharma, Member),
1. This Complaint is filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs. 4,600/- or new mobile phone, to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards mental agony and cost of the complaint, as the Hon’ble forum deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.
2. The brief facts the complaint is as follows:- The complainant purchased Nokia Asha Dual N 305 mobile from O.P.2 on 24-9-2012. The O.P2 issued bill one year warranty to the complainant. After purchasing the mobile phone not working properly troubled with touch screen problem. The complainant approached O.P.2 and the O.P.2 advised the complaint to approach O.P.1 for repairing. The complainant approached the O.P.1 on 4-12-2012 and explained the touch screen problem of mobile phone and O.P.1 assured to the complainant to repair touch mobile phone problem of phone within week. The complainant stated that after one week he approached the O.P. 1, again he said that come after one week. The complainant approached O.P. 1 number of times not given mobile phone so far. The complainant is an employee of the Roshni Muslim Welfare Organization. He is working as a clerk in that organization. Due to non-availability of mobile phone to contact his employer facing more problems. Hence, the complainant terminated from his duties and also lost his salary of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. with the attitude of the opposite parties. The complainant suffered much mentally with the attitude of the opposite parties, non-availability of mobile phone, the complainant not knowing the health of his wife and daughter’s due to non-availability of mobile phone. The complaint has also lost his contact number. Hence, this complaint.
3. After numbering the case notices were issued to the O.P. 1 & O.P. 2 and the same is served. O.P.2 filed counter and O.P.1 did not appear before the forum and they said exparte on 12-3-2014.
4. O.P.2 filed a counter denying all the allegations made by the complaiant. The complainant purchased Nokia N305 Asha Mobile phone and informed full particulars of warranty terms and conditions and the complainant purchased without any demur and the entire allegations which are contradiction and denied absolutely false and invented for purpose of the case.
5. The complainant purchased mobile phone on 24-9-2012 but the allegations made in the complaint that the complainant approached O.P.2 for repair of mobile and O.P.2 directed him to approach O.P.1 is absolutely false and invented for purpose of the case. The complainant never approached O.P.2 for repairing of the mobile phone. The cost of the mobile Nokia Asha N305 purchased by the complainant is only Rs. 4,380-95Ps but not Rs. 4,600/-. The bill amount is inclusive of VAT @ 5% on the value of mobile phone and it is a statutory tax payable to the State. The complainant suppressed the material facts before the Hon’ble forum and the complainant has not file the present complaint with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. The job sheet No. 1412 dt. 4-12-2012 mentioned in the complaint and issued by the authorized service center i.e. O.P.1 but O.P.2. The complainant makes false allegations to extract more monies from O.P.2 in the event of succeeding the present complaint.
6. At the time of purchase of the mobile phone it was in good working condition and checked by the complainant. The complainant used mobile phone more than two months without any problem. Touch pad is most sensitive part in a mobile phone, it was an electronic visual display that can control through simple or multi touch gestures by touching the screen with one or more fingers. The touch pad can be damaged number of ways viz., by dropping from heights, sitting on the mobile phone or mobile phone is subjected to pressure or it was exposed to extreme heat and cold temperatures or in water or when subjected to a sudden shock. The complainant might have been caused due to physical damages to the Mobile phone or negligent acts of the complainant for which the warranty does not apply, either manufacturer or O.P. 2 cannot be held responsible for the defects caused due to physical damages.
7. The manufacturer provides the warranty for the mobile phones and authorized services centers to carry out the after sales service / repairs, if any defect arises during warranty period. Manufacturer’s authorized service centers are run by certified Engineers, equipped with genuine spare parts and service equipment’s. Warranty become void if any 3rd party or retailer carryout the service. The manufacturer provides the warranty and also reimburses the costs for the repairs. The O.P.2 is only retailer and it is involved in the business of sale of various brand of mobile phone including Nokia and O.P.2 no way concern with its manufacturing units nor with the warranty provided by the manufacturer. The O.P 2 has no knowledge of the alleged defects in respect of the mobile phone purchased by the complainant. On perusal of the complaint and documents that the complainant stated that touch pad problems. But failed to plead the specific problems that arose in the touch pad and the dates on with the complainant approached the O.P.2 and also failed to file any documents corroborating allegations against O.P.2. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs.
8. To prove his case the complainant filed affidavit along with documents marked Ex. A1 to A4.
9. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
i. Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him?
ii. Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of their opposite parties?
iii. To what relief?
10. Point Nos. 1 & 2. The complainant purchased mobile phone Nokia Asha Dual N305 on 24-9-2012 under invoice No. 91/KDP/23382 for Rs. 4,600/- from O.P.2. Ex. A1 invoice clearly shows that the O.P.2 has issued bill and with one year warranty for mobile, six months warranty for battery and charger. The complainant paid total amount of Rs. 4,600/- but not Rs. 4,380-95Ps towards cost of the mobile phone to O.P.2. After purchase of two months the complainant’s mobile phone started troubles i.e. touch screen problem and the complainant approached O.P.2 and O.P.2 advised the complainant to approach O.P.1 for repairs of mobile phone on 4-1-2012 under Ex. A2. The complainant issued notice from Consumer Association to O.P.1, dt. 4-3-2012. It was Ex. A3. Ex. A4 was postal receipt. In Ex. A2 in customer complaint column the O.P.1 mentioned that the touch screen was not working. O.P.2 filed a counter and stated that he agreed that complainant purchased mobile phone in his shop. When the mobile phone comes under repair, the complainant approached O.P.2. The O.P.2 has advised you go for O.P.1 for repairs in counter O.P.2 denied complainant not appeared me that the complainant not approached him. After that complainant approached O.P.1 for repair of his mobile phone under Ex. A2 job sheet No. 1412 dt. 4-12-2012 mentioned in the counter of O.P.2 issued by the authorized service center i.e. O.P.1. The O.P.1 is not rectified the mobile problem or not returned back to the complaint so far. It is bounded duty of the opposite parties to satisfy the customers. The O.P 1 was agreed that there is touch screen problem in Job sheet. Hence, O.P. 1 & 2 are jointly severally liable for deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. So the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him. Hence, the points are answered accordingly.
11. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 to rectify the defects in mobile and directing the opposite party No. 1 to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards mental agony and cost of complaint, within 45 days date of receipt of the order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 18th March 014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 Receipt issued by the O.P.2 for Rs. 4,600/-, dt. 24-9-2012.
Ex. A2 Receipt issued by the Nokia care service center, dt. 4-12-2012.
Ex. A3 Notice issued through Consumer Society to the O.P.1, dt. 4-3-2013.
Ex. A4 Notice booking postal receipt, dt. 4-3-2013.
Exhibits marked for Opposite parties: - NIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
1) Nazeer Ahmad Khan, S/o Mohammad Haseem Khan,
32 years, D.No. 7/81, Chilakalabavi, Kadapa.
2) Authorized Signatory, Nokia Care,
Authorized Service Center, A.N.C. Code : 462-465550,
Sudha Mobils, Shop No. 18, 19,
New Municipal Complex, R.M. Kadapa.
3) Manager, Big-C Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., 4/487,
Kotireddy Street, Nagarajupet, Kadapa.
Ph. No. 9985874888.
B.V.P.
