DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SUBARNAPUR
C.C. No.25 of 2010
Rasananda Sahu, S/o. Late Dutia Sahu, aged about 40 years, R/o. Sonepur town, Majhipada, P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur
………….. Complainant
Vrs.
1. Proprietor, R.K. Mobile near Bus Stand Sonepur, P.O./P.S./District - Sonepur.
2. The Manager, Nokia India Private Ltd., Registered Office Radisson Complex Commercial Plaza, Mahipalpur, New Delhi – 110037.
………….. Opp. Parties
Advocate for the Complainant …………. Sri R. Agrawal
Advocate for the O.P. No.1 …………. Sri M.K. Sahu
Present
1. Sri U.N.Purohit, President
2. Sri H.Padhan Member
Date of Filing Dt.30.11.2010
Date of Hearing Dt.19.12.2022
Date of Order Dt.23.12.2022
J U D G E M E N T
By Sri U.N.Purohit, P.
The complainant files complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the ground that the O.P. No.2 is the manufacturer of Nokia Mobile Hand Set and doing business through his retail dealer O.P. No.1 at Sonepur town. The O.P. No.1 selling Mobile Hand Set of different company in his shop situated near Bus Stand Sonepur. The complainant purchased one Mobile Hand Set Model Nokia 1662 with Battery No.9335920212494 at a price of Rs.1800/- on 01.12.2009. The said Mobile Hand Set bears one year warranty from the date of purchase. The O.P. No.1 promise to replace/repair the Mobile if any defect found within the warranty period. After 5 months from the date of purchase i.e. 05.04.2010 the complainant found defect in the Battery of the said Mobile Hand Set, the charging capacity of battery was gradually decrease, so the complainant immediately lodged complaint at the shop of O.P. No.1 deposited the defect Mobile Hand Set. The O.P. No.1 return
-: 2 :-
the Mobile Hand Set after 15 days with necessary repairing. The mobile was in good condition for one month later developed the same defect. The complainant lodged several complaint at the shop of O.P. No.1 he assured to repair the same but till 12.11.2010 the O.P. No.1 has not5 taken any step to remove the defect. On 13.11.2010 the complainant served pleader notice to the O.P. No.1 with a request to repair/replace the defect Mobile Hand Set within a period of 15 days. Inspite of service of notice the O.P. No.1 remain silent and not taken step to repair or replace the defective mobile. The notice of the company returned back with an endorsement change of address, the defect in the Mobile Hand Set within the period of warranty, the O.P. No.1 temporarily removed the defect by repairing the same and failed to remove the defect permanently for said reason the Mobile Hand Set became defective. For defect of Mobile Hand Set the complainant unable to use and sustain mental agony, harassment, financial loss due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of O.Ps. The complainant claim repair or replace the defective Mobile Hand Set, compensation of Rs.10,000/- for his suffering and Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation.
The O.P. No.1 in his version admitted the contents of complaint para 1 to 4 except extra warranty by the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 denied the allegation of para 5 to 7 and claims there was no complaint within 5 months. The complainant not made any complaint to him as the Mobile Hand Set was good functioning for one month, the complainant never lodged any complaint regarding such defect it is admitted by the O.P. No.1 received the pleader notice but as there was no defect it was not required to reply on such notice. So far change of address is not known to him.
The O.P. No.1 is the owner of retail counter of Nokia Hand Set, the Nokia Company has establish its Nokia Care Centre or Nokia designated service location whichever may be it be found is the original service warranty provider. It is not the duty of the O.P. No.1 retail shop counter. Invoice given to the complainant in lieu
-: 3 :-
of purchase the warranty will be provided only by the manufacturer it is noteworthy that every Nokia Hand Set is being sold with its Brand Package and inside that package a user manual is also been kept which is only to make aware of the customer about the liability of the company and is right of getting service of warranty. The user manual speak all warranty condition and where and how it is available.
Whenever any defect set is handover for repairing service job sheet is being given to the customer mentioning its nature or defect, nature of service required with product details and what was provided for. The complaint itself is silent about nature of defect in the hand set, the complainant is law graduate and suppose to know the term of retail invoice and warranty condition declared by the manufacturer in the Nokia User Manual. The warranty period of battery run for 6 months including period it runs smoothly afte4r repairing, this allegation is not admitted, 6 months has already expired the complainant has used the battery with the hand set smoothly for 6 months there aft3er as per user manual of manufacturer of Nokia Company the warranty period is not available to a customer specially in case of warranty available for battery, so the complaint is liable to dismissed.
The O.P. No.1 is nowhere related with any service to the complainant which learnt from the Nokia User Book provided by Nokia Company and also O.P. No.1 has declared in his retail invoice to make aware the customer as regard his liability of service and warranty for each item to be sold. The O.P. is not involved in any unfair trade practice, deficiency of service he is committed to his good service to the customer.
Perused the complaint petition, version of O.P. No.1, documents submitted by the complainant, i.e. retail invoice dt.01.12.2009, pleader notice by Advocate, R. Agrawal on 13.11.2010 with A.D. of courier service, the warranty Card we are came to a conclusion that the O.P. being the product seller and complainant being a consumer reported about the defect of the product immediately and the O.P. No.1
-: 4 :-
instead of advised the complainant to send the Mobile Hand Set to the Nokia Care Centre himself repair the same and handover the set to the complainant as such tempered the warranty condition of the O.P. No.2 by the O.P. No.1 to defraud the complainant from his legitimate claim of warranty condition, so it is fitness of things the O.P. No.1 has involved in unfair trade practice and fail to render proper service as such he is deficient in service and liable to pay compensation to the complainant. As the case is year old and lingering since 2010 and the Mobile Hand Set involved in this case is outdated by afflux of time it is fit to return the consideration amount of the Mobile Hand Set to the complainant and Rs.1200/- towards compensation and cost of litigation in total Rs.3000/- to be paid to the complainant by the O.P. No.1. 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 23rd day of December 2022
Typed to my dictation
I agree. and corrected by me.
Sri H.Padhan Sri U.N.Purohit
Member President
Dt.23.12.2022 Dt.23.12.2022
