D.O.F. 06.03.2012 D.O.O. 27.06.2012 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member Smt. M.D.Jessy : Member Dated this the 27th day of June, 2012. C.C.No.70/2012 Hrishikeshan A.K. S/o. Raveendran K. Appade Kallidil, Annur P.O., Payyannur (Via), Kannur Dist. 1. Managing Director, Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Flat No.1204, 12th Floor, Kailash Building, Kasthurba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi – 11000. 2. The Proprietor, Computer Club, Computer, Mobile Phone Sales & Service, Royal City, Main Road, Payyannur, Kannur Dist. – 670307. O R D E R Smt. M.D. Jessy, Member This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order to replace the defective mobile set together with `26,000 as compensation from the opposite party. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows. Complainant purchased Nokia C2-03 mobile phone from 2nd opposite party on 19.10.2011 by paying an amount of `4500. The phone is not registering sim cards and failed to provide clear and audible calls. Whenever the set registered the call ended with a screen message that ‘operation failed’. The set is also having complaint of hanging calls. From the initial day itself complainant approached 2nd opposite party for curing the defects of mobile set but 2nd opposite party not cured the same. There after on 27.02.2012 the set was handed over to the service person of 1st opposite party and returned without rectifying the defect. Complainant who is a catering contractor suffered much loss due to the non-functioning of the mobile set. He calculated `26,000 as the approximate value of loss sustained to him. Hence the above complaint filed for an order directing the opposite party to replace the defective mobile set with a new one of the same denomination and to pay `26,000 as compensation for the loss from the opposite party. Forum sent notice to opposite parties but opposite party did not take care to appear and subsequently opposite party was called absent and set exparte. From the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost? The evidence consists of chief affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1, A2 and C1 marked. Issue No.1 & 2 : It is the case of the complainant that complainant purchased Nokia C2-03 mobile phone from 2nd opposite party on 19.10.2011 by paying an amount of `4500 as per Ext.A1. Ext.A2 warranty card issued on behalf of 2nd opposite party. 2nd opposite party is the distributor of the Nokia C2-03 mobile phone. The allegation of the complainant is that the phone is not registering sim cards and failed to provide clear and audible calls. Whenever, the set registered, the call ended with a screen message that ‘operation failed’. The set is also having complaint of hanging calls. Ext.C1 is the commission report found that the set is faulty. From the initial day itself complainant approached 2nd opposite party for curing the defects of mobile set but 2nd opposite party not cared the same. Thereafter, on 27.02.2012 the set was handed over to the service person of 1st opposite party and returned without rectifying the defect. Complainant who is a catering contractor bought this mobile phone worth `4500 definitely with much expectation. So complainant suffered much loss due to the non-functioning of mobile set. Afterwards Forum sent notice to opposite party but opposite party was not ready to appear before the Forum. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and complainant is entitled to get remedy. So Issue No.1 and 2 found in favour of the complainant. Issue No.3 : It is the case of the complainant that the damaged set Nokia C2-03 mobile phone is not registering sim cards and failed to provide clear and audible calls. The set is also having complaint of hanging calls. Ext.C1 report substantially found that the set is faulty. 1st opposite party manufacturer is also having prime liability to replace the same. In such a situation 2nd opposite party has to replace the Nokia C2-03 set for the same denomination together with `1000 as cost of the proceedings. 2nd opposite party can realize this amount and new set from 1st opposite party. Complainant has to return the damaged set to 2nd opposite party on receiving the new set with compensation. In the result complaint is allowed directing 2nd opposite party to replace a new set C2-03 of same denomination together with `1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as compensation within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainant is entitled to execute the order as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Complainant has to return the damaged set on receiving the new set. 2nd opposite party is entitled realize the amount paid and set replaced or its amount from 1st opposite party. Dated this the 26th day of June, 2012. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant A1. Cash bill dated 19.10.2011. A2. Nokia – operating manual. Exhibits for the opposite party Nil Exhibits for the Court C1. Inspection report Witness examined for the complainant Nil Witness examined for opposite party Nil /forwarded by order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT | 
