Complaint is filed on 7-4-2009
Compliant disposed on 1-2-2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
::AT:: KARIMNAGAR
PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI K. DEVI PRASAD, B.Sc., LL.B., PRESIDENT
SMT. E. LAXMI, M.A.,LL.M.,PGDCA (CONSUMER AWARENESS), MEMBER
SRI. K. CHANDRA MOHAN RAO, B.Com., LL.B., MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 63 OF 2009
Between:
Nagalli Devender, S/o. Narsaiah, Age 40 years, Occ: Government Employee, R/o. O/o. Sub Treasury Office, Karimnagar proper and town.
…Complainant
AND
- SABA Tele Communications, Shop # 1, Manair Hotel Complex, Mukarampura, Karimnagar.
- Nokia Care, Mobile Service point # 11.12.13. Hina Business towers, Mukarmpura, Karimnagar.
- Nokia India Private Limited, South Regional Office, Bangalore – 560 087
…Opposite Parties
This complaint is coming up before us for final hearing on 20-1-2011, in the presence of Sri B.Srinivas and Smt. B. Geetharani, Advocates for complainant and Sri H.Chakradhar and MD. Dastagirikhan, Advocates for opposite party no.1 and Sri S.Chandra Mohan and T. Pranab Kumar, Advocates for opposite party no.2 and Sri M. Paramjyothi, Advocate for opposite party no. 3, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following
::ORDER::
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.12,000/- with interest towards value of the Mobile Phone along with compensation and costs.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the opposite party no.1 is the authorized sales agent of opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.2 is the authorized service center of NOKIA Phone and opposite party no.3 is the manufacturer of NOKIA Cell Phone. The complainant submits that on 21.8.2007 he purchased NOKIA N-70 Music edition Cell Phone from opposite party no.1by paying an amount of Rs.12,000/-. After few days the said Cell Phone became defective and it was switched-off automatically and there was poor audio quality and developed with lot of problems. Therefore, the complainant approached opposite party no.1 and informed him about the defects developed in it on which the opposite party no.1 repaired it and returned to the complainant. But again defects were developed in the Cell Phone on 23.2.2008 and informed the opposite party no.1 about it, then opposite party no.1 advised the complainant to approach opposite party no.2 who is the authorized service center of NOKIA phones. The opposite party no.2 rectified the problem after one week but again the same problem is developed and for repairs it was handed over to opposite party no.2. After two months it was returned to complainant but it was not functioning well. Several times it was given for repairs but even then the defects were not cured. Finally on 8.8.2008 the Cell Phone was handed over to opposite party no.2 for repairs and it was not returned to the complainant since then the complainant requested the opposite parties for refund of Rs.12,000/- paid by him for the Cell Phone along with compensation, but the opposite parties failed to pay the amount. The Cell Phone was given for repairs for ten months and till today it is with opposite party no.2 only. Therefore, the complainant sought direction for refund of the amount with compensation and costs.
3. The opposite parties no.1 to 3 filed counters separately submitting that the opposite party no.1 is the authorized dealer and opposite party no.2 is the authorized service center of NOKIA Cell Phone and opposite party no.3 is the manufacturer of the NOKIA Mobile Phones. The opposite party no.1 admitted that on 21.8.2007 complainant purchased N-70 NOKIA Cell Phone from him by paying Rs.12,000/- and that after few days the complainant approached him about the defects developed in the Cell phone on which he was advised to contact opposite party no.2 for repairs. It is submitted that several times the repairs were made to the Cell Phone but it was not rectified. When the opposite party no.2 informed to opposite party no.3 about the defects developed in the Cell Phone, the opposite party no.3 sent a new piece for replacing the defective one. When the opposite party no.2 requested the complainant to collect new piece by way of replacement, complainant refused to receive the same and filed the present complaint. It is submitted by the opposite parties that they are ready to handover new piece to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint and filed documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is the bill issued by opposite party no.1 Dt: 21.6.2007. Ex.A2 is the photo copy of Service Job Sheet issued by opposite party no.2 Dt: 23.2.2008. Ex.A3 is the photo copy of Service Job Sheet issued by opposite party no.2 Dt: 08.08.2008. Ex.A4 is the office copy of letter sent to opposite parties Dt: 20.09.2008. Ex.A5 is the Professional Courier Receipt addressed to opposite party no.1 Dt: 22.09.2008. Ex.A6 is the Professional Courier Receipt addressed to opposite party no.2 Dt: 22.09.2008. Ex.A7 is the unserved/refused cover addressed to opposite party no.1. Ex.A8 is the unserved/refused cover addressed to opposite party no.2.
5. Sri Gulam Asad Khan filed Proof Affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.1.
6. Opposite party no.2 filed Proof Affidavit of its’ Manager reiterating the averments made in the counter.
7. Sri M.S.Kalsi filed Proof Affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.3 reiterating the averments made in the counter and they did not chose to file documents on behalf of opposite party no.1 to no.3.
8. The points for consideration are:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- If so, what relief the complainant is entitled to?
9. Heard both sides.
10. This case is filed seeking an order for payment of Rs.12,000/- which was paid by the complainant for purchasing NOKIA N-70 Cell Phone on 21.8.2007 on the ground that it is defective instrument and the repairs made to it could not rectify the defects. A perusal of bill under Ex.A1 discloses that the complainant purchased N-70 Music edition on 21.8.2007 from opposite party no.1for a sum of Rs.12,000/-. In the counter filed by opposite party no.1 the fact of purchasing of Cell Phone is admitted. A perusal of Job-Sheets under Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 discloses that the said Cell Phone was developed with problems and therefore it was given to opposite parties for repairs. Inspite of attending to it by opposite party no.2 the problems could not be rectified and it was handed over to the service center for repairs. There is warranty for a period of one year regarding the problems developed in the Cell Phone. During the period between 21.8.2007 to 8.8.2008 the Cell Phone was with opposite party no.2 most of the time for repairs. The complainant sent a letter under Ex.A4 requesting opposite party no.1 and no.2 to refund the amount paid by him along with compensation.
11. With regard to the defects developed in the Cell Phone the opposite party no.2 admitted in their counter and inspite of repairs the problem could not be rectified. Therefore, the opposite party no.2 informed the manufacturers i.e. opposite party no.3 about the defects developed in the Cell Phone and requested for settling the claim of the complainant. ON which the opposite party no.3 sent a new piece N-70 Model Music Edition towards replacement for the defective Cell Phone and on receipt of the same opposite party no.2 informed the complainant about replacement and requested him to collect the new phone. Instead of collecting it the complainant filed this complaint. The opposite parties expressed their readiness to hand over new piece to the complainant.
12. In support of their contention opposite party no.3 filed citation reported in III (2002) CPJ 299 (NC) rendered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi which is not relevant to the facts of the present case.
13. As per the terms of warranty the opposite parties are ready to
replace the defective Cell Phone with a new one. But in this case the complainant sought direction for refund of Rs.12,000/- towards the amount paid by him for purchasing the Cell Phone. Admittedly some problems developed in the Cell Phone due to which the complainant had to hand over the same to the Service Center (i.e. opposite party no.2) for repairs on account of which he could not use the Cell Phone most of the time. When the opposite parties are ready to hand over new piece towards the replacement of defective phone the complainant cannot ask for refund of the amount paid by him. The terms of warranty are given for rectifying the defects and providing free service but not for payment of the amount. It is not the case of the complainant that the Model N-70 is discontinued, but still it is available in the market. Since the opposite parties are ready to hand over the new piece it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service on their part. It is not at all relevant whether the price of Model N-70 is reduced now. But the fact is that the opposite party no.2 and no.3 were/are ready to supply new piece. Therefore, the question of return of the cost of the mobile does not arise. However, the complainant was put to inconvenience on account of defects developed in the Cell Phone for which it would be just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards compensation. For the foregoing reasons, we direct the opposite parties to hand over new piece of NOKIA N-70 Music edition Model to the complainant by way of replacement of defective Cell Phone and to pay Rs.1,000/- towards compensation together with Rs.500/- towards costs of the complaint.
14. In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties no.1 to no.3 to hand over new piece of NOKIA N-70 Music edition Model to the complainant by way of replacement of defective Cell Phone and opposite party no.1 to no.3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- towards costs of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, after correction the orders pronounced by us in the open court this the 1st day of February, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
NO ORAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE
FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 is the bill issued by opposite party no.1 Dt: 21.6.2007.
Ex.A2 is the photo copy of Service Job Sheet issued by opposite party no.2 Dt: 23.2.2008.
Ex.A3 is the photo copy of Service Job Sheet issued by opposite party no.2 Dt: 08.08.2008.
Ex.A4 is the office copy of letter sent to opposite parties Dt: 20.09.2008.
Ex.A5 is the Professional Courier Receipt addressed to opposite party no.1 Dt: 22.09.2008.
Ex.A6 is the Professional Courier Receipt addressed to opposite party no.2 Dt: 22.09.2008.
Ex.A7 is the unserved/refused cover addressed to opposite party no.1.
Ex.A8 is the unserved/refused cover addressed to opposite party no.2.
FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES: -NIL-
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
