This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to take back the mobile phone and to pay ` 17,000 as compensation.

          The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a Nokia X6 music mobile phone from 1^st opposite party made up of 2^nd opposite party for an amount of ` 16,000 on 17.08.10.   The complainant had purchased the mobile attracted by the offer that, he can down load unlimited music free of cost. But the complainant had obtained this facility only for one month.  The owner of the shop instructed the complainant to inform the same to Nokia Care when he had informed the matter to him. But they told the complainant that they can do nothing.  The complainant had purchased the mobile phone by availing loan and is paying interest also.  Since the above facility of downloading of unlimited music is not available, the complainant requested to the 1^st opposite party to take back the mobile, but he is not ready to do so.  So the complainant had suffered so much of financial and mental hardships.  Hence this complaint.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum both opposite parties appeared and filed their version.  The 1^st opposite party filed version contending that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and is not maintainable before the Forum.  The 1^st opposite party contended that the hand set in question was supplied to the 1^st opposite party by M/s.Bravio International Trading Pvt. Ltd., City Centre, Kannur who is the authorized distributor of Nokia handsets.  The 1^st opposite party admits the purchase of handset on 17.08.10.  But the opposite party has not issued any warranty or guarantee to the complainant or had given any assurance to the effect that the complainant will be able to download unlimited free music for a period of one year.  The handset in question was purchased by opposite party from Bravo International Trading Pvt. Ltd and was sold to the complainant in the same condition in which it was purchased.  The complainant had not approached the 1^st opposite party after purchase of handset and the complainant had not cared to disclose as to who offered to provide download of free music for a period of one year.  The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the 1^st opposite party and is not liable to take back the handset and to return the price together with interest or to pay any amount as compensation and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          The 2^nd opposite party also filed version contending that they are the manufacturer of mobile set, the complainant’s case is sheer reflection of communication gap while listening the features of the handset between the dealer and the complainant.  The warranty period covers the range of faults that ensue mechanical functioning of the mobile set without any interference or influence.  The complainant’s allegation are sheer bundles of lies and has fails to establish any harassment and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The allegation with respect to unlimited free music download is a self made story and has never been said by 2^nd opposite party and no documents to support the claim.  The Nokia handsets features are displayed on the brochures and other booklet.  At the time of purchase, it is the prime responsibility of the consumer to read the features and purchase the handset which suits to his demand.  The limited warranty clause is very specific with regards to the repair and replacement of the handset.  So the handset will be repaired, if it suffers from a default or a problem during the limited warranty period and the defect is covered under the limited warranty offered by 2^nd opposite party. So the complaint is liable to be dismissd.

          Upon the above rival contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1.     Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum.

2.     Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

3.     Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

4.     Relief and cost.

The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Ext.A1 and B1.

Issue No.1  :

          The opposite parties contended that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum.  The complainant’s case is that he had purchased the mobile worth ` 16,000 induced by the offer of unlimited free download of music for one year, but he had received this facility only for one month and because of this he is not using the mobile phone and all these was caused due to the deficient service of opposite parties.  The complainant deposed before the Forum that “Hcp hÀj-t¯¡v                 unlimited Bbn  music In«p-sa-¶m-bn-cp¶p [mc-W.” He further deposed that “Nokia company mobile hm§p-t¼m-gp-ff offer BWv X¶Xv”.  But the complainant has not produced any documents to this effect. Moreover he further deposed before the Forum that “internetþ setþsâ khn-ti-j-X-IÄ a\-Ên-em¡n hm§-W-sa¶ Dt±-i-t¯msS IS-bn t]mb-Xv. T.V.bn offers\¸än ]c-kyw NokiabpsS D­m-bn-cp-¶p. t^m¬ set\v complaint H¶pw CÃ.” This deposition and from the pleadings of the complainant it is seen that the phone set has no defect.  The complainant again deposed that “Airtel cellular servicesâ tkh\w BWv Rm³ D]-tbm-Kn-¡p-¶-Xv.   music download sN¿p-¶Xv skÃp-emÀ kÀÆoknsâ  tkh-\-¯nsâ `mK-am-sW¶v ]d-ªm icn-bm-Wv.”

So from this deposition it is known to the complainant that the dispute is between him and the telegraph authority.  The Hon’ble National Commission in PrakashVerma Vs idea cellular and another unambiguously clarified the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora regarding mobile phone.  The national commission held that Supreme Court’s judgment is binding on all other sub-ordinate courts.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and another, held that considering the special remedy as provided in section 7-B any such dispute could be resolved only by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings ie any dispute between a subscriber and the telegraph authority could be resolved only by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings.  So we are of the opinion that the case is also a dispute between a subscriber and a telegraph authority and hence the case is not maintainable before the Forum and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Since issue No.1 is found against the complainant we are not going into merit of the case and is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result, complaint dismissed. No cost.

               Sd/-                             Sd/-

          President                      Member                    Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.  Bill dated 17.08.2010.

Exhibits for the opposite party

B1.  Bill dated 17.08.2010.

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite party

DW1.  K. Pradeepan

                                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT