Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/730

THE PROPRIETOR POSITIVE NOKIA CARE - Complainant(s)

Versus

K SUKUMARAN NAIR - Opp.Party(s)

SHANAVAS

02 Dec 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.730/2015

JUDGMENT DATED 02/12/2016

  (Appeal filed against the order in C.C No.17/2012 dt. 15/06/2015 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram)

 

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                                      :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR           :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

APPELLANT:

            The Proprietor, Positive Nokia Care,

NMC, 17-138 A, Dutt & Sons Plaza,

Opposite CSI Church, Amaravila P.O.,

Neyyattinkara-695 122.

 

(By Advs:  S. Shanavas & M. Ayyoobukhan)                    

                        Vs

RESPONDENT:

            K. Sukumaran Nair, Sukumara Vilasom,

Thathiyoor, Manchavilakom P.O.,

Neyyattinkara.

 

(By Adv: Sasthamangalam  R. Jayakrishnan)  

                                                           JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

          Appellant is the opposite party in C.C.No.70/2012 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram who preferred this appeal.

          2.  It is the case of the complainant that the complainant purchased Nokia Mobile Phone on 17/8/2010 from the authorized dealer.                The complainant approached the opposite party as he detected some complaints in the phone.  The opposite party issued a job sheet wherein the repair charge agreed was for Rs.450/-.  It is stated in the complaint that the opposite party assured that the total repair charges including the spares will come to Rs.450/-.  On 15/12/2011 when the complainant approached to get back the mobile phone the opposite party claimed Rs.2,000/- towards service charge and cost of some spare parts.  As per the complainant he was not willing to get repaired the mobile phone for such a huge amount and requested to return the mobile phone which was denied by the opposite party.  On 22/12/2011 a notice was issued to return the mobile phone  repaired for the agreed amount.  This act of opposite party claiming huge amount amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

          3.  The opposite party filed written version contending that the mobile phone entrusted was not working and issued the job sheet.  The complaints noticed were made as per the complaints of the complainant.  Thereafter on inspection it was found that the mobile phone is having defects and the expenses estimated was for Rs.2,000/- instead of Rs.450/-.  This was informed to the complainant and the complainant in turn shouted and          mis- behaved to the staff of the opposite party.  The opposite party is ready to repair the mobile phone for Rs.2,000/- and the mobile phone was ready after repair.  The complainant was not ready to take away the phone from the opposite party’s office.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and the complainant himself has not turned up to take delivery of the repaired mobile phone.  Hence the complaint is only to be dismissed.

          4.  The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and documents were marked as P1 to P5.  No oral evidence or documents on the part of opposite parties.  Considering the evidence and documents the Forum Below allowed the complaint.

          5.  It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the respondent entrusted the mobile phone for repair and as per the job sheet an amount  of Rs.450/- was written towards the service charges.  It is on examination only the appellant found out the repairing charges will come to Rs.2,000/- against which the respondent was not amenable to pay the amount.          By that time the instrument had already given for service, whereas the respondent demanded the phone immediately.  The respondent purposely entrusted the mobile phone and turned down without taking back the mobile phone.  It is also submitted that the respondent abused and          mis-behaved to the staff of the appellant and threatened to file the case.  As per the job sheet it is specifically mentioned that the estimate given at the time of acceptance of the instrument to repair was provisional and may vary at the time of detailed inspection.  In the instant case, after the detailed inspection the service personnel detected that the cost would be higher than the assured amount.  The appellant was ready to handover the mobile phone to the respondent.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

          6.  The counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent purchased the Nokia mobile phone on 17/8/2010 and on detecting some compliants the mobile phone was entrusted for repair on 14/12/2011.      The   job sheet issued by the opposite party, Exbt: B2 the repair charges would be Rs.450/-.  On 15/12/2011 when the respondent approached the opposite party to get back the mobile phone, the opposite party demanded Rs.2,000/- as repair charges.  As the amount for repair charges was too high the respondent demanded the  phone back which was not returned on the ground that the appellant sent the instrument for repair.                     The respondent was not willing to get the phone repaired for higher amount and the appellant was reluctant to return the mobile phone, the respondent sent notice to get the mobile phone repaired for Rs.450/- within 7 days which was not amenable to the appellant.  The respondent had to approach the District Forum to redress his grievance.

          7.  Heard both sides in detail and had gone through the records.  Admittedly, the complainant purchased the Nokia mobile phone for Rs.4,100/- and after one year of the purchase complaints arose and had to approach the appellant herein.  It is evidenced by  Exbt: P2 that the mobile phone was entrusted to the appellant and the amount agreed was Rs.450/-.  Nothing is coming out from the part of the appellant that the expenses for repair charges comes to Rs.2,000/- against the agreed amount of Rs.450/-.  The mobile phone was accepted by the appellant after inspection by its technicians.  On the next day the demand for Rs.2,000/- from the part of appellant was not supported by any document so also the mobile phone was sent for service.  The respondent requested  the mobile phone without service which was denied by the opposite party.  No convincing evidence is produced by the appellant to show that the instrument was sent for service and for which part the excess amount is charged etc.  We find that there is no evidence on the part of opposite party to show that the defect-free mobile phone was ready and informed the respondent in time.  Appellant has not produced any evidence to show that the phone was inspected properly by any technician.  We find no convincing evidence on the part of  the opposite party that they were diligent in repairing the mobile phone.  In the circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Forum Below.

          In the result, appeal dismissed and we uphold the order passed by the Forum Below.       

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

 

          A. RADHA           :         MEMBER

 

 K. CHANDRADAS NADAR     :              JUDICIAL MEMBER  

 

 

Sa.

 

 

 

 

 

     KERALA STATE CONSUMER

              DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, SISUVIHAR LANE,

VAZHUTHACAUD   

                           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.730/2015

JUDGMENT DATED 02/12/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.