APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner | : | Mr. Mukund P. Unny, Advocate | | | |
PRONOUNCED ON: 16th AUGUST 2016 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER The challenge in this revision petition is to the impugned order dated 16.02.2016, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 209/2014, The Metro Telecom vs. Mohammed Sadiq, vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 30.12.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mangalore, in Consumer Complaint No. 320/2012, filed by the present respondent, allowing the said complaint, was upheld. 2. The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent filed the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum, saying that he had purchased a Nokia X6 mobile phone set worth more than Rs. 11,000/- from Dubai and he handed over the said mobile set to the Petitioner/OP for repair on 16.07.2002, as the keys of the said set were not functioning. The OP issued job sheet to the complainant, in which it was mentioned in the column ‘major symptoms’ that the keys did not work. The OP asked the complainant to collect the handset on the next day. However, when he went to collect the same, he found cracks in the glass at the front of the handset. The OP promised to rectify the same within ten days, but even after expiry of that time, the handset was not returned to him and the OP stated that the said handset had been sent to Bangalore for repairs. Alleging that the OP neither informed nor returned the said mobile handset to the complainant, the complainant filed the consumer complaint, seeking directions to the OP for giving him the value of the handset as Rs. 11,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 750/- and thus, demanded a total sum of Rs. 61,750/- from the OP. The Petitioner/OP filed reply to the complaint before the District Forum, in which they admitted that the handset had been handed over to them on 16.07.2012 for repairs for side-frame replacement and even the touchpad had cracked and there was full dust in the set. The OP stated that they replaced the side frame on the same day, but the complainant refused to take the set back. The Petitioner/OP also stated that the set had been purchased from abroad and did not have valid warranty in India. 3. The District Forum, after considering the averments of the parties, allowed the complaint vide their order dated 30.12.2013 and directed the Petitioner/OP to pay Rs. 11,000/- to the complainant by retaining the handset and also pay Rs. 5,000/- as damages and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost. Being aggrieved against the said order, the Petitioner/OP challenged the same before the State commission by way of an appeal and the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 16.02.2016, the petitioner/OP is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition. 4. During arguments before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner/OP submitted that the touch screen of the handset had cracks when the set was handed over to them for repairs. They had, however changed the side frame of the set, but the complainant had refused to take the set back. The learned counsel argued that the orders passed by the consumer fora below were perverse in the eyes of law, because the complainant had not produced any bill/invoice etc. in support of his claim for getting a sum of Rs. 11,000/- alongwith compensation. 5. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. 6. A perusal of the service job sheet made by the petitioner/OP on 16.07.2012 reveals that the mobile handset in question was handed over to them by the complainant for repairs. The ‘major symptom’ has been recorded as, “key pad: key(s) do not work”. In the written version filed by the petitioner/OP before the District Forum, it has been stated as follows:- “5. It is submitted that complainant had brought the handset on 16.07.2012 for repair i.e. for side frame replacement and even touch pad had a crack and full dust in the hand set etc. We have replaced new side frame and set was repaired on same day but complainant refused to take back the set and started demanding and blackmailing OP and not even ready to pay the cost of the side frame amount and even service charge and also spoke in a filthy language and behaved in inhuman manner.” 7. The above version given by the petitioner/OP makes it clear that they had replaced the side frame of the set only, but they did not do anything to repair the cracks on the touch pad. In case, there was a crack on the touch pad when the set was handed over to the petitioner/OP for repairs, they should have recorded the same on the service job sheet. However, even if it is presumed that they failed to record this fact on the service job sheet, the petitioner/OP have themselves admitted that they did not take any steps to repair the crack on the touch pad. Since no valid explanation is forthcoming from the petitioner/OP regarding the repair of the set, the orders passed by the consumer fora below cannot be held to be perverse in the eyes of law. The direction made by the District Forum for making payment of Rs. 11,000/- to the complainant as value of the handset, alongwith a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost seems to be in order. The contention raised by the petitioner/OP that the warranty of the handset was not valid in India is without any force, as rightly observed by the consumer fora below. It is held, therefore, that there is no merit in this revision petition, as the orders passed by the consumer fora below do not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error. The present revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed in limine and the orders passed by the consumer fora below upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. |
