Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

106/2014

B.E.Babu Shaiath, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Poorvika Mobiles(p) Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

A.N.Alagappan

16 Aug 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on  :  02.06.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on  :  16.09.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,         :      PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,            :     MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY  THE 16^th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.106/2014

 

 

 

B.E.Babu Sayath,

Old No.13, New No.31,

Subbammal Street,

Old Vannarapettai,

Chennai – 600 021.

                                                                               .... Complainant

 

..Vs..

	1.Managing Director, Poorvika Mobiles Private Lmited, Head Office, No.30, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024.   2. Managing Director, Poorvika Mobiles Private Limited, Branch Office, No.525, Thiruvotriyur High Road, Old Washermenpet, Chennai – 600 021.         3. Managing Director, Nokia India Private Limited, SEZ SIPCOT Industrial Park, 3rd Phase, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram District – 602 105.
	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  : 05.06.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : Represented by Mr.A.N.Alagappan

Counsel for 1^st & 2^nd   Opposite parties   :M/s.S.Muthuselvam

Counsel for 3^rd Opposite Party                      :Ex - parte

 

O R D E R

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant purchased a Nokia mobile on 26.01.2013 from the 2^nd opposite party/dealer for a consideration of Rs.2,350/-.  On the date of purchase itself the Complainant started to use the mobile, he could not able to hear the voice of the other end person and the voice is very feeble.  Hence the Complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party on 27.01.2013 and informed the defect in the mobile.  The 2^nd opposite party replied that he can come on the next day and so that he could able to consult Nokia customer care in the mean time.  The Complainant went on the next day and however the 2^nd opposite party replied that he cannot change the phone.  Hence the Complainant issued a legal notice on 31.01.2013 to the opposite parties. The 1^st opposite party only replied for the said notice.  The 1^st opposite party is the Head Office of the 2^nd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer of the Nokia mobile.  Again the Complainant issued notice dated 13.05.2014 to the opposite party.  They did not redress the grievances of the Complainant.  Hence the Complainant filed this complaint to refund the cost of the mobile and also compensation for mental agony besides the cost of the complaint. 

2. THE 3^rd OPPOSITE PARTY REMAINED EX-PARTE. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st  & 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTIES  IN BRIEF:

          On 27.10.2013 the 2^nd opposite party examined the mobile and did not find any defect in the product.  The said fact was informed to the Complainant.  The Complainant very well knew that he has to get remedy from the service centre if at all manufacturing defect would be rectified only by them.  However these opposite parties have not committed any defect in selling the products or their service.  Hence these opposite parties pray to dismiss the complaint.

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2.Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

4.POINT:1

           The Complainant purchased a Nokia 114 mobile for a consideration of Rs.2350/- on 26.01.2013 from the 2^nd opposite party/dealer. The 1^st opposite party is the Head Office of the 2^nd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer of the Nokia mobile purchased by the Complainant.

          5. According to the Complainant on the date of the purchase of mobile when the Complainant while using the same,  he found that he was unable to hear the voice of the other end clearly and the voice is very feeble and hence he approached the 2^nd opposite party on 27.01.2013 and informed the  defect in the mobile and he asked to come after two days and thereafter he directed to contact the Nokia service centre and the Complainant also contacted the Nokia service centre as advised in the Ex.A4 by the 1^st opposite party at Nokia service centre No.11, Evening Bazzar and in the service centre after examination of the mobile replied that the mobile is having manufacturing defect and therefore the opposite parties committed deficiency in service. 

          6. The 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties contended that except selling and in their service no deficiency committed by them and the Complainant has to contact the service centre and get Redressal from them and therefore these opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint.

          7.  The 1^st opposite party is the Head Office of the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party is only a dealer who has sold the product to the Complainant.  The 1^st opposite party gave Ex.A4 reply to the Complainant to submit the handset at the nearest Nokia care or nearest Poorvika showroom.  After the above reply the Complainant also contacted the service centre at No.11, Evening Bazzar, Chennai and they informed him after examining the mobile that the said mobile is having manufacturing defect.  This fact was informed to opposite parties by way Ex.A5 notice and  the same was received by all the opposite parties.  However none of the opposite parties replied to the Ex.A5 notice.  The 3^rd opposite party remained absent and set Ex-parte and therefore there is no contra evidence on his behalf in respect of the allegation made by the Complainant.  In such circumstances it is held that the mobile is having manufacturing defect as alleged by the Complainant.  In Ex.A5 it is requested to the Complainant to submit the mobile to the nearest Poorvika Showroom. The Complainant initially submitted the mobile to 2^nd opposite party/ showroom.  He has simply directed the Complainant to contact the service centre.  As stated in Ex.A4, the 2^nd opposite party did not take any step after obtaining the mobile would be rectified. Therefore 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties also failed to provide service. In the above circumstances, we hold that the opposite parties 1,2,3 have committed deficiency in service. 

          8. Since the mobile is having manufacturing defect and the same was not rectified by the 2^nd opposite party, the Complainant is entitled for refund of the cost of product of Rs.2,350/-, apart from that a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation for mental agony and also a sum of Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.

09.POINT NO:2

          In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The 2^nd opposite party is ordered to refund a sum of Rs.2,350/- (Rupees two thousand three hundred and fifty only) towards the cost of the product to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards  litigation expenses.

The above amounts shall be payable to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amounts shall carry 9%  interest till the date of payment.  The complaint in respect of the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties is dismissed.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 16^th day of September 2016.

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 26.01.2013                   Invoice cum delivery Chalan

Ex.A2 dated 31.01.2013                   Legal notice to 1^st & 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A3 dated 04.02.2013                   Postal Receipt

Ex.A4 dated 16.04.2013                   Letter sent by opposite party to the Complainant

Ex.A5 dated 13.05.2014                   Legal notice sent by Complainant to 1^st and 3^rd

                                                  opposite party

 

Ex.A6 dated 15.05.2014                   Acknowledgement Receipt

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

                                      …..NIL ….

 

         

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT