CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Smt. Renu.P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 322/11
Tuesday the 11th day of February 2014
Petitioner : Raveendranadhan K.P
Kandathil House,
Ramapuram Bazar PO,
Kottayam 686 576.
(Adv. Thomas Joseph)
Vs
Opposite parties : 1) Manager,
Nokia city,
Nokia Priority,
Manakkad Junction,
Pala Road, Thodupuzha.
(Adv. K.A. Prasad)
2) Manager,
Nokia Corporation Ltd.,
Ne Delhi.
( 2nd opposite party is deleted as per
order dated 29/12/12 in IA 593/12)
ORDER
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Case of the petitioner filed on 12/12/11 is as follows:
Petitioner on 14-12-2010 purchased a mobile phone manufactured by Nokia Company from Nokia City, a shop at Thodupuzha by paying Rs.6200/-. According to petitioner from the date of purchase the mobile phone showed complaints. So two times it was entrusted with authorized service centre of Nokia Company at Pala. But the complaint of the mobile phone was not cured. Hence this petition filed by petitioner for the order of directing the opposite party to replace the mobile phone and cost.
Opposite party filed version contenting that he got information regarding the complaint of petitioner’s mobile when the notice was received from the Forum. Petitioner never intimated the complaint of the mobile phone. According to opposite party the nokia company issued for one year service warranty and no replacement warranty. And opposite party is ready to clear the complaints of petitioner’s mobile phone through the company.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party
ii) Relief and cost?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit of petitioner and Ext.A1 and A2 documents. Opposite party filed version.
Point No.1
According to petitioner the Nokia mobile purchased by the petitioner on 14-12-10 become defective within a few days of its purchase.. Petitioner produced a copy of the Job card issued by the authorized service center of Nokia Mobile and the said document is marked as Ext.A2. In Ext.A2 complaints were shown as “data cannot be saved and network problem”. In our view the fact of defect shown by a mobile phone within three months of its purchase shows that the mobile phone supplied by the opposite party is an inferior quality mobile. Act of opposite party in supply an inferior quality mobile to the petitioner amounts to deficiency in service. So Point No.1 is find accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in Point No.1 petition is allowed. In the result
- Opposite party is ordered to replace the defective mobile phone with a brand new mobile of the same model and same price OR refund Rs.6200/- price of the mobile to the petitioner.
- Opposite party is ordered to pay Rs.750/- as compensation and Rs.750/- as litigation cost to the petitioner.
Order shall be complied with within one month of receipt of a copy of the order. If the order is not complied as directed petitioner is entitled for 6% interest for the award amount from the date of petition till realization.
Sri. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Smt. Renu.P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1-copy of invoice(No.2487) dtd 14-12-2010
Ext.A2-copy of receipt issued by Nokia service center dtd.21-2-11
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
