CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2012.
Present : Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 29/06/2012
CC /113/2012
Jameela .O
D/o. A. Maleeka Pilla (late), - Complainant
Rajeevam, Kavalappara,
1/86, Kacherimedu,
Chittur. P.O,
Palakkad – 678 101
(BY ADV. T.R. Anil Venugopal)
Vs
1. Manager, Nokia Priority,
Near Mission School, R.J.P. Combines,
Hajees, English Church Road, - Opposite parties
Palakkad.
2. Manager, Nokia Service Centre,
Nurani, Palakkad.
(BY ADV. M.P. Ravi)
O R D E R
BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER
Case of the complainant is as follows :-
The complainant has purchased a Nokia Mobile Phone IMEI. No. 3570140412983408357 from 1st opposite party on 15.09.2011. The complainant has used the said mobile phone for four months. Suddenly the phone stopped its functioning. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party and she was asked to give the mobile phone to the 2nd opposite party for service. The 1st opposite party had informed the complainant that the mobile phone will be replaced for any complaint within 6 months from the date of purchase and also offered a service warranty for one year.
When the mobile phone entrusted with the 2nd opposite party they asked the complainant to come on next day and on that day 2nd opposite party demanded an amount of Rs. 550/- for repair the phone. Then the complainant demanded free service during warranty period the 2nd opposite party shown ignorance and demanded Rs. 330/- for repair. After two days the 2nd opposite party returned the phone and informed that it is impossible to repair. So the complainant sent a letter to the 1st opposite party. They sent a reply which was not satisfactory to the complainant. The act of opposite parties caused mental agony and monitory loss to the complainant.
So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite parties to replace the mobile phone with a new one and pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony.
Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version denying all the contentions put forward by the complainant. Opposite parties admit the purchase of the mobile phone and handing over the same for repair. Opposite parties content that the mobile phone was damaged due to water and it was repaired at an unauthorised service centre. According to opposite parties the acts of complainant amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the warranty and hence the phone was returned to the compalainant. All these facts were explained to the complainant and mentioned in the job sheet which was signed by her. There is no deficiency of service on the side of opposite parties and complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Ext. A1 to A3 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext B1 and B2 marked on the side of opposite party. Commission report was marked as Ext. C1. Commissioner was cross examined as CW1.
Issues to be considered are :-
1.Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties
2. If so what is the relief and cost?
Issues I & II
The case of the complainant is that she has purchased a mobile phone from the 1st opposite party on 15.09.2011 Ext. A1 shows the same. After 4 months of usage the phone stopped its functioning. According to complainant she is entitled to get the phone replaced. At the time of purchase the 1st opposite party promised that the phone will be replaced if any defect is found out within 6 months. When the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for repair, they informed that it is impossible to repair the phone as free. According to opposite parties as per Ext. A2, terms and conditons, clause 5,6 , if the mobile is water damaged and given for service with unauthorised service centre warranty will be void. In the Ext. B2 that is job sheet it is written as the phone is having water complaint and un authorised servicing. As per Ext. C1 commission report, “ there is no wet inside the mobile phone”. At the time of cross examination commissioner deposed that the soldering paste was applied on power IC and heated. He is also deposed that usually the soldering paste is using in unauthorised service centres. There is no evidence to show that the complainant entrusted the mobile phone in an unauthorised service centre for repair. It is also difficult to believe that during the warranty period the complainant has entrusted the mobile phone in an unauthorised service centre, for repairs.
During cross examination CW1 stated that “ Soldeing paste ഇട്ട് ചൂടാക്കി കഴിഞ്ഞാലും പിന്നീട് നോക്കിയാല് വെള്ളം ഉള്ള ഭാഗത് പാട് ഉണ്ടാകും. വെള്ളം ഇല്ലാത്ത ഭാഗത് പാട് ഉണ്ടാകില്ല. Mobile – ല് വെള്ളത്തിന്റെ പാട് ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നില്ല. എന്റെ പരിശോധനയില് Power IC യ്ക്കാണ് defect ”.
Commissioner also stated that if water entered in to the mobile phone there is a possibility to damage other parts also. But no other parts have been seen as defective. From the above discussion we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
In the result complaint allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/-( Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Opposite parties are at liberty to get back the old phone on complying the order.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of December, 2012.
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Retail invoice bill dt. 15.09.11.
Ext. A2- User guide book issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant dtd. 15.09.11.
Ext. A3- Reply notice sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant dtd. 15/03/12
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1- Copy of the warranty details sheet to the complainant .
Ext. B2- Copy of the service job sheet to the complainant dtd. 28.01.12.
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Commission Report
CW1 – Abhilash
Cost allowed
Rs. 3,000/- (Three Thousand only ) allowed as cost of the proceedings
