BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :: GUNTUR Present: Sri T. Anjaneyulu, B.Sc. L.L.B., President, Smt. C.Rachel Devavaram, M.A., M.Ed., L.L.M.,(Ph.D) Member Tuesday, the 24th day of June, 2008 C.C.No.508 of 2008 BETWEEN: Y.Hanumantha Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, D.No.8-11/116, Nehru Nagar, 7th line, Guntur. … Complainant AND 1. H.C.L. Infinet Limited, Nokia Professional Center, Unit-5, 2nd floor, Topaz Building, Amrutha Hills, Punjagutta, Hyderabad. 2. Nokia Care Center, H.C.L. Infinet Limited, Shop No.4, 1st floor, Mahalakshmi Towers, Raja Gopala Chari Street, Vijayawada. 3. Tejasri Infocomm, Arundelpet, Swarnalok Complex, Guntur. 4. Big C, Multi Branch Mobile Show Room, Near Sono Vision, Majid Street, Vijayawada. … Opposite parties This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on 17.06.2008 in the presence of Sri K.V.Raghuanath, advocate for complainant and of Sri M.Sravan Kumar, advocate for the OP3, O Ps 1, 2 & 4 are called absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: O R D E R Smt. C.Rachel Devavaram, Member : This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction on the opposite parties to rectify the problem in the cell phone or to replace the old one with new set or to repay the bill amount of Rs.10,000/- and for mental agony, compensation and costs. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows: The complainant is Y.Hanumantha Rao who is a resident of Guntur purchased a new Nokia cell phone set model No.7610, bearing code No.IME No.359732007665883 and battery No.0670400382066N151L2NM 10839 and charger No.0675294399791M284E50144526 from 4th opposite party at BIG C, Vijayawada on 01-12-06 and received cash bill for Rs.10,000/-. Three days after the purchase of Nokia cell phone set, the complainant noticed that the handset is hanging after using the key buttons. After 3 to 5 minutes, the mobile itself turns off and again switches on without operating. The same is reported to 4th opposite party and the handset is handed over to 3rd opposite party which is a service center at Guntur on 12-12-06 to rectify the problem – power of phone restarts/reboots. The 3rd opposite party handed over the set to the complainant on 13-12-06 after the repair of the set. The complainant used the set for two days and the same problem arose again. On 16-12-06, the complainant again handed over the set to 3rd opposite party, on 18-12-06. The complainant complaints that 3rd opposite party handed over the set without any rectification of the problem. Vexed with the attitude of the 3rd opposite party the complainant approached 2nd opposite party, the service center at Vijayawada for the same problem in job sheet Nos.4200080690 and 4200082851. The complainant experienced the same problem there also. Then, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party at Hyderabad for the same problem on 03-01-07 and 1st opposite party returned the set after 4 days stating that it was rectified. The complainant noticed the same problem on using the set and stunned for the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties1 to 4. The complainant reported the same to opposite parties 2 to 4. Till today the opposite parties neither rectify the problem nor provided any other set. Vexed with the opposite parties regarding the deficiency of service, complainant preferred this complaint. Hence, the complaint. The 3rd opposite party filed version and denied the allegations made in the complaint. The opposite parties 1, 2 & 4 are set exparte on the provision of sufficient service on 17-09-07. The brief facts of version of OP3 are as follows: The 3rd opposite party agrees that the complainant purchased new Nokia cell phone set model No.7610 from the 4th opposite party on 01-12-06 by paying Rs.10,000/- and obtained cash bill to that effect on 12-12-06. The opposite party submits that the complainant complained to 3rd opposite party that the handset was hanging even after using the key buttons and the instrument goes off and on automatically. It is submitted that 3rd opposite party attended the problem and rectified the defect and demonstrated the functions of the set, which was normal and to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant had signed the service job sheet that he was satisfied with the functions of the set and took away the set on 13-12-06. As the 3rd opposite party being the service center, the complainant approached him on 16-12-06 with the same complaint. The 3rd opposite party observed the mechanism by keeping it for two days under their observation to find out the problem. The functioning was monitored from 16th to 18th December, 2006 and after the satisfaction of its functioning, the mobile was given to complainant on 18-12-06. Again the complainant signed the service job sheet after the satisfaction over functioning of the set and took back. The opposite party submits that the mobile is functioning well in the shop but when the complainant operates the set at his home the problem arises. This clearly depicts that the set was not properly operated or it was mishandled. According to 3rd opposite party the failure of set was due to rough handling by the complainant or his people without knowing how to use it. According to 3rd opposite party, in such cases like this, the complainant should demand for the replacement of set from the opposite parties especially from 4th opposite party. The 3rd opposite party submits that he had done his best as the service center rectified the alleged defects and brought the set to working condition, which was also acknowledged by the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of 3rd opposite party. Hence, 3rd opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint. The points for consideration are: 1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties? 2. If so, to what relief? POINT No.1 The complainant filed Ex.A1 to A6 in support of his case. No documents are filed on behalf of 3rd opposite party. Ex.A1 is the cash bill dt.01-12-06 for Rs.10,000/- issued by 4th opposite party, A2 is the service job sheet dt.12-12-06, A3 is the service job sheet dt.16-12-06 of 3rd opposite party, A4 is the service job sheet dt.03-01-07 of 1st opposite party, A5 is the copy of the letter addressed by the complainant to 1st opposite party, A6 is the Nokia user’s guide. On perusing the material on record, the Forum came to the conclusion that the opposite parties have sold defective handset (mobile) to the complainant. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant i.e., Y.Hanumantha Rao had purchased a mobile set bearing model No.7610 of Nokia Company for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- on 01-12-06. The handset carries the warranty of 6 months for battery and charger and one year warranty for mobile. It started giving trouble three days after the purchase. The complainant approached 3rd opposite party two times and approached 1st opposite party one time at Hyderabad to rectify the problem, but of no use. For the continuous problem of the handset, the complainant filed a case before the District Forum. Thus, the material on record established that a defective handset was sold and there was deficiency of service in repairing the defective set. Any amount of service to it could not make the set perfect one. Hence, 4th opposite party i.e., seller of mobile is directed to give Rs.10,000/- towards cost of mobile, which was noted in Ex.A1. If the seller gives a new handset, this model may be not a successful one because the complainant got so many troubles with this set and there were no instructions in the manual if the handset is not properly used it will get spoiled. In support of the above observation, the Forum rely on the citation 2008 (1) CPR 47 NC, in which the National Commission held as follows: “Deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, which is writ large in the case, and duly supported by the factum that they changed the components in the first instance, followed by change of the handset and when that was not working properly, it was further suggested to change the handset. If in these circumstances, the State Commission has awarded refund of the amount which was the consideration paid by the complainant for purchase of handset, we cannot find any illegality or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the State Commission to call for any interference by us. It ought to be noted that the petitioners were given 30 days to pay this amount without interest. Be that as it may, since the other party is not in revision, we are not taking any view of the question of rate of interest. In the aforementioned circumstances, we find no merits in the revision petition, hence, dismissed.” POINT No.2 In the result, the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below:
1. The forum directs the 4th opposite party to return the amount i.e., Rs.10,000/- paid by the complainant after receiving the old mobile within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Otherwise the amount carries interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of realization. 2. Rs.500/- is awarded towards costs. Dictated to the Junior Steno, transcribed by her, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum this the 24th day of June, 2008. Sd/- C.Rachel Devavaram Sd/- T.Anjaneyulu MEMBER PRESIDENT APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE No oral evidence is adduced on either side DOCUMENTS MARKED For Complainant : Ex.Nos. | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS | A1 | 01-12-06 | Cash bill for Rs.10,000/- issued by 4th opposite party in the name of complaint. | A2 | 12-12-06 | Service job sheet of 3rd OP. | A3 | 16-12-06 | Service job sheet of 3rd OP. | A4 | 03-01-07 | Service job sheet of 1st OP. | A5 | --- | Copy of letter addressed by the complainant to 1st opposite party | A6 | --- | Nokia user’s guide |
For Opposite Party : NIL Sd/- T.Anjaneyulu PRESIDENT
......................C. Racehl Devavaram
......................T.ANJENEYULU | | 
