DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SUBARNAPUR
C.C. No.13 of 2011
Mathura Bihari Mahapatra, S/o. Sankarsan Mahapatra, aged about 52 years, R/o. Sonepur town, Majhipada, P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur
………….. Complainant
Vrs.
1. Ranjit Kumar Behera, Prop. R.K. Mobile near Municipality Office, B – Block, Stall No.03, Sonepur.
2. M/s. Nokia India Private Ltd., Radisson Complex Commercial Plaza, Mahipalpur, New Delhi – 110037.
………….. Opp. Parties
Advocate for the Complainant …………. Sri R.S. Meher
Advocate for the O.P. No.1 …………. Sri N.K.Tripathy
Present
1. Sri U.N.Purohit, President
2. Sri H.Padhan Member
Date of Filing Dt.17.06.2011
Date of Hearing Dt.12.12.2022
Date of Order Dt.19.12.2022
J U D G E M E N T
By Sri H.Padhan, M.
The complainant files complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the ground that the complainant purchased one Nokia Mobile Model 7210C at a consideration of Rs.4200/- from Prop. R.K. Mobile. The Prop. O.P. No.1 issued invoice Sl. No.3703 dt.14.08.2010 in evidence of selling of the Mobile. The O.P. No.1 issued warranty Card alongwith invoice after receiving consideration amount from the complainant. The complainant used the Mobile hand set by putting Sim Card for a period of about one year during the period the mobile hand set defunct time to time and approximately run Seven and half months. The complainant unable to operate Mobile hand set due to voice defect. The outgoing call and incoming call in the mobile was not clear so the complainant unable to operate the mobile. On 01.06.2011 the complainant reported to the O.P. No.1 about the defect within the
-: 2 :-
warranty period, the O.P. No.1 verify the defect and send it Nokia Care Service Center. The Nokia Care Service Center that reporting the same return on the ground the mobile set has been tempered which amounts to pretense and cheating to customer.
The O.P. No.1 knowing the same denied to provide service to the complainant or denied to exchange new one in place of defect mobile. Such conduct of the O.P. No.1 is nothing but unfair trade practice and deficiency in providing service towards the complainant. When the O.P. No.1 denied to exchange and repair the defect mobile the complainant unable to do important call for important work thereby suffered lot mentally, physically, financially. The cause of action arose on 01.06.2011 and finally on 12.06.2011. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs.20,000/- and loss of business Rs.10,000/- and exchange of new mobile alongwith cost of litigation.
On the other hand the O.P. No.1 admitted the contents of para 1 to 5 except dispute he is authorized agent of NOKIA company, he admits he is product seller of Nokia Mobile. Further he admits that the complainant came to his shop complaining him the hand set some audible defect which was purchased from his shop. On the same day he received the set from complainant after checking the invoice and warranty card send it to Nokia Care Bolangir which is the authorized service Centre of Nokia to found and rectify the defect of the hand set. In other wards he acted promptly. After 10 to 12 days Nokia Care Centre send back the Mobile set finding damage to the set by misuse unauthorisedly some one might have tempered with the parts of that mobile set previously. As per the warranty the company has to provide the accessories which carry limited warranty for a period of 6 months from the date of purchase. There is no provision under warranty card given by the Nokia Company or invoice of his shop to replace any defect set to its customer in case any defect will be found it does not amount to carry unfair trade practice.
-: 3 :-
The complainant knowingly not made party to the Nokia Care Centre as his claim is found false his conduct shows the complainant concealing real fact, the complainant not file any written complaint before office regarding malfunctioning of his set to get a new set, complainant file this case to damage the good will and reputation of the O.Ps. showing the defect publically without any reason and the complainant not eligible to get any relief.
The O.P. No.2 set exparte and not file version in this case. The complainant never seek any relief against the O.P. No.2 and the O.P. No.2 being product manufacturer though liable for manufacturing defect no claim against him by the complainant and any defect not brought to his knowledge by the complainant and the product seller O.P. No.1, so he is not liable for the defect.
The O.P. No.1 appear and admitted the selling of mobile set to the complainant and receiving the hand set with defective alongwith invoice and warranty card, so it is proved that there was defect in mobile set within the period of warranty and the defect of the mobile set has not been removed by the O.P. No.1 who is product seller. From the version of O.P. No.1 no where it has mentioned that while he received the aforesaid mobile hand set was tempered or mis use before he receiving for repair or replacement so the exception of product liability action cannot be extended and the product seller is liable for the deficiency in service. In his version the O.P. No.1 admitted as per warranty it was limited to a period of 6 months but while he receiving the product after one year admitted the warranty so the version of O.P. No.1 is not acceptable, the product covered the warranty period.
The complainant in support of his claim filed affidavit in evidence and Xerox copy of retail invoice, service job sheet of Nokia Care Centre Panda Mobi Tech. The service invoice shows the customer name R.K. Sale Point Sonepur.
“ Turned on total record may be deleted no back cover.”
-: 4 :-
On the evidence of the complainant and documents it found that while the O.P. No.1 received the hand set on 01.06.2011 no such finding of Nokia Centre has brought to the knowledge of the complainant. So it presumed that either the O.P. No.1 or the Nokia Care Centre knowingly deliberately to defraud the complainant make success to create such documents for avoiding liability.
Since the case lingering from 2011 and it is year old it is not possible to replace the mobile set to same model with proper condition in the present scenario it is fit to award return the price of the mobile hand set i.e Rs.4200/- to the complainant by the O.P. No.1 and further directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards mental agony and cost of litigation. Complaint is partly allowed. This order be comply within one month from the date of order failing which the penal interest of 10% will be charged till realization of award amount.
Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for perusal of the parties.
File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this judgment.
Dated the 19th day of December 2022
Typed to my dictation
I agree. and corrected by me.
Sri U.N.Purohit Sri H.Padhan
President Member
Dt.19.12.2022 Dt.19.12.2022
