BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 39/11.
THIS THE 13th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- L.K. Nagangouda @ Nagarajgouda, S/o. Sugappa,
age 41 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Matmari village, Tq. Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- Manager/Proprietor, NOKIA CARE, S.B.
Services, No. 1-10-62, Gopalan Nair Complex, Station Road, Raichur-584 101.
CLAIM :- For to direct him to pay an amount of Rs.
3,060/- with cost etc.,
Date of institution :- 26-05-11.
Notice served :- 15-06-11.
Date of disposal :- 13-09-10.
Complainant represented by Sri. Ratnakar, Advocate.
Opposite represented by Sri. Sateesh.V. Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
This is a complaint filed by complainant L.K. Nagangouda @ Nagarajgouda against the opposite Proprietor Nokia Care Center U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct him to pay an amount of Rs. 3,060/- with cost etc.,
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, he owns Nokia Mobile hand set model No. 5220. It developed some technical snag in the month of February-2011, he approached opposite Nokia Care Center for repair, as per the advise of opposite Nokia Care Center, he paid Rs. 1,850/- on 10-02-2011 towards repair charge, thereafter within few days it developed problems. Hence on 17-02-2011 he once again approached opposite Nokia Care Center for which he was advised to replace the battery, accordingly, the new battery for Rs. 1,210/- was replaced in place of old battery. Thereafter also the mobile set not properly worked, hence he approached the opposite on several times to repair the mobile set or to return the amount of Rs. 1,850/- and Rs. 1,210/- charged by it. But opposite not responded properly, behaved in rude manner as such legal notice was issued for which, he not responded accordingly this complaint is filed for the reliefs as noted in it.
3. The Proprietor of opposite Nokia Care Center, Raichur, appeared in this case through his Advocate, filed his written version by denying the allegations made by the complainant. According to him, first time complainant came to his service center on the complaint of technical snag in his mobile set, he repaired and charged fee of Rs. 1,850/-, thereafter second time complainant visited his service center on the complaint that, the battery of the set is over heating, accordingly the new battery was replaced in place of old one by taking amount of Rs. 1,210/-. Again complainant made complaint about the work of mobile hand set within (30) days warranty period of the battery. However, he agreed to refund the battery amount of Rs. 1,210/- as it was in warranty period, he refused to pay a service charge of Rs. 1,850/- towards repair of the set, there was no deficiency in service on his part and accordingly he prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, opposite took Rs. 1,850/- towards repair charge of the mobile set but not properly repaired, again he approached the opposite he was directed him to replace the battery accordingly he paid Rs. 1,210/- and got replaced new one battery, thereafter also mobile hand set not properly worked, he informed the same to him but opposite not responded to his request, he shown his negligence and thereby he found guilty under deficiency in his service.?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.?
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In the affirmative
(2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
6. The simple dispute in between the parties are that, opposite not properly repaired the mobile hand set of the complainant, even though he charged Rs. 1,850/- vide Bill No. 5244. Further opposite falsely advised the complainant to replace the battery and thereby he charged Rs. 1,210/- towards replacement charge of new battery and thereafter also the mobile set was not in working condition and thereby opposite extracted Rs. 3,060/- from him by adopting unfair trade practice.
7. The repair of mobile hand set for the first time dt. 10-02-2011 by receiving an amount of Rs. 1,850/- from the complainant is not in dispute. Further it is undisputed fact that, opposite also replaced a new battery to the hand set of complainant by receiving an amount of Rs. 1,210/- on 17-02-2011. Further it is undisputed fact that, the mobile set was not in working condition after replacement of new battery.
8. The only defence taken by the opposite is that, he sent the mobile to Noika Care Center and got repaired and thereafter it returned to complainant there was no repair by him or any kind of negligence shown by him in repairing the mobile hand set.
9. In view of the undisputed facts and disputed facts between the parties, we have gone through the documents filed by the complainant along with affidavit-evidence of the parties, we are of the view that, first time on 10-02-2011 opposite received an amount of Rs. 1,850/- after repair that means he repaired the mobile set of the complainant by checking the entire system either by himself or by Nokia Care Center. When such was the service rendered by him after receipt of Rs. 1,850/-, again developing some other problems and advising the complainant to replace the battery by charging Rs. 1,210/- within few days is not a standard of service required to be rendered by reputed firm like Nokia Care Center of Raichur. Simply giving reasons for complications day by day and charging the huge amount for such reasons without giving proper service or repair of the mobile hand set of the complainant is unfair trade practice adopted by opposite only to extract money from the complainant. When the mobile set was in un-repairable condition then, there was a duty of opposite to bring all the defects of mobile set to the notice of complainant. But opposite not adopted such fair practices in this case, accordingly, we have noticed deficiency in service on the part of opposite towards complainant and thereby we answered Point No-1 in affirmative.
10. As regards to the reliefs are concerned, it is undisputed fact that, the complainant has charged Rs. 1,850/- on 10-02-2011 within span of seven days again he charged Rs. 1,210/- as battery was over heating. In the said circumstances, the complainant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 3,060/- from the opposite along with his hand set, which is now in the custody of opposite, the complainant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 3,000/- under the head of deficiency in service and another amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of this litigation.
11. The complainant is entitled to recover total sum of Rs. 9,060/- from the opposite, accordingly we answered Point No- 2.
POINT NO.3:-
12. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost.
The complainant is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 9,060/- from opposite along with his old hand mobile set model No. 5220.
Opposite is hereby granted one month time to pay the above said amount to the complainant from the date of this judgment.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 13-09-11)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
