Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/658/2017

Mr.K.Jain, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Accurate Care, Certified by Nokia Care Centre, - Opp.Party(s)

19 May 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 12.04.2017

                                                      Disposed on: 19.05.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027      

 

 

CC.No.658/2017

DATED THIS THE 19^th MAY OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

	Complainant/s	V/s	Opposite party/s
	K.Jain, S/o Jain S.K. Aged about 33 years, R/at No.3447, 10th Cross, IV Main, 2nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-38.   By Adv.Kamath & Kamath		M/s Accurate Care, Certified by Nokia Care Centre No.514/A, 80 Feet, C.M.H.Road, Next to ICICI Bank, Opposite Max Show Room, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-560 038. Rep by Authorized person.   Exparte.

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

                  1.           The complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party directing to refund a sum of Rs.60,000/- being the replacement cost in respect of  Mobile Telephone set bearing IME/ESN No.357254050867227 (GSM/CDMA Model No.1020) entrusted on 9.11.2015 and damages of Rs.25,000/- towards the cost of persuasion as well as loss of valuable information contained in the unit and grant a further sum of Rs.20,000/- being the cost of mental torture given by the Opposite Party in making false promises of returning the unit.

2.       The brief facts of the Complainant are that he had bought a Nokia Brand Mobile Telephone set bearing IME/ESN No.357254050867227 (GSM/CDMA Model No.1020) from the United Kingdom for a value of Rs.60,000/-. The Opposite Party claims that he is the reputed service provider for all types of mobile sets and has got the sufficient experience as well as expertise in handling all different nature of repair work on the Nokia mobiles sets. The Complainant submits that on the basis of claims so made by the Opposite Party and believing the same to be true, he had delivered his said mobile phone to the Opposite Party on 9.11.2015 for the identified repair work and the Opposite Party after verifying the nature of defect had agreed to repair the same and deliver it back to him making it in a perfect condition. The Complainant submits that the Opposite Party had asked him to collect the duly repaired unit so entrusted to him on or after 1.12.2015. When he visited the Opposite Party on several dates on or after 1.12.2015, various reasons were given by the Opposite Party that the unit handed over by the Complainant was still under repair. The Complainant further submits that finally on 30.6.2016 made a final attempt to take back his unit entrusted on 9.11.2015 to the Opposite Party, but the same was declined by the Opposite Party as the unit was misplaced by him. The conduct and action of the Opposite Party in negligently misplacing the mobile phone handed over to him and failing to return the same either in a duly repaired condition or at the same condition with which it was initially entrusted to him amounts to deficiency of service. The Opposite Party has caused severe hardship and loss to the Complainant by losing the precious mobile phone which consisted of various important information and data. If the Complainant has to take a similar one, now it costs more than Rs.60,000/-. Therefore, having no other alternative, the Complainant has approached this Forum for seeking redressal of its grievance. The Complainant has also issued notice to the Opposite Party as per the notice dt.7.6.2016 and although the Opposite Party has received the said legal notice, has not chosen to reply the same. The Complainant submits that even after taking all the possible efforts such as contacting them over phone and visiting the Opposite Party several times, they have not responded. Therefore, the Complainant has no other alternative than to approach this Forum by filing this complaint. The Complainant is a consumer as defined under the CP Act and the Opposite Party is a service provider for a cost. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party only because he was the authorized dealer of Nokia Mobile phones. Hence, this complaint.       

 

3. Notice was ordered to issue to the Opposite party. Inspite of notice duly served on the Opposite Party, did not appear, hence placed exparte.

 

4.       The complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and got marked as Ex-A1 and A2 and close aside. The complainant has also filed written arguments. Heard the learned counsel for the Complainant.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1) Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency in service on the

     part of the OP, if so, whether he is entitled for the relief sought

     for?

 

2) What Order?

                  

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point No.1: In the Affirmative 

Point No.2: As per the final order for the following

REASONS

7. POINT No.1:  We have already briefly stated the contents of the complaint. Though the notice duly served on the Opposite Party, did not appear to oppose the claim by way of filing the version. Under such circumstances, non-appearance/non-filing of the version, amounts to an admission with regard to the grievance of the complainant, in the light of decision reported in 2018 (1) CPR 314 (NC) in the case of M/s Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd., V/s Aman Kumar Garg. Anyhow, we placed reliance on the available materials on record for just disposal of this case. It is the specific allegation of the Complainant that he purchased the Nokia Brand Mobile Telephone set bearing IME/ESN No.357254050867227 (GSM/CDMA Model No.1020) from the United Kingdom for a value of Rs.60,000/-. But he did not produce the purchase receipt to show that the cost of the said mobile phone is Rs.60,000/-. The Opposite Party claims that he is the reputed service provider for all types of mobile sets and has got the sufficient experience as well as expertise in handling all different nature of repair work on the Nokia mobiles sets. Believing the words of the Opposite Party, the Complainant handed over the said mobile handset to the Opposite Party on 9.11.2015 for the identified repair works. In this context, the Opposite Party has given the service job sheet as per Ex-A1. After handing over the said mobile, the Opposite Party neither repaired the said mobile handset, nor delivered it as it is. But the response of the Opposite Party is that the said mobile handset was misplaced. This itself is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. If the Opposite Party is diligent to oppose the claim of the Complainant, certainly he would have appeared before this Forum and to contest the claim. When the claim is not contested, this forum has no go except to consider the claim of the Complainant in the light of service job sheet marked as Ex-A1 and also notice issued to the Opposite Party as per Ex-A2.

 

8.       In the service job sheet marked as Ex-A1 wherein the complaint is shown as “unable to boot up shown error messages”. This mistake was not rectified by the Opposite Party by way of repairing the said mobile handset. But his response was that the said mobile handset was misplaced. Under such circumstances, this forum has no other go except to direct the Opposite Party either to handover the mobile as it is or else to pay the cost of the said mobile handset. To know that, he has purchased the mobile handset for an amount of Rs.60,000/-, no invoice/ purchase receipt has been produced by the Complainant. Even the making year of the said mobile handset is also not pleaded in the complaint. This Forum has to take judicial note that if the customers purchased the reputed company mobiles and using it for 6 months to 1 year, the value of the said mobile handset becomes gradually come down. In the absence of the purchase receipt, only guess is to be carried out. In Nokia Brand, there are so many features including android. In the instant case, the Complainant has not shown features of the said Nokia handset. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that if the Opposite Party did not handover the said mobile handset of the Complainant, he has to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.1000/- towards cost of this litigation. Accordingly, we answered Point No.1 is in the affirmative.   

 

9.       POINT NO.2: In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to handover the said Nokia Brand Mobile Telephone set bearing IME/ESN No.357254050867227 (GSM/CDMA Model No.1020) to the Complainant or else to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- being compensation to the Complainant within 6 weeks from the receipt of this Order. Failing which, the said amount carries interest at 6% p.a. from the date i.e.9.11.2015 to till its realization.

The Opposite Party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- being the cost of this litigation.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

            (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open forum on 19^th May 2018).

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)      MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)   PRESIDENT

                                                                                          

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

 

Sri.Kharavela Jain, who being the complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

 

Ex-A1	Original Service Job Sheet No.4540 dt.9.11.2015 issued by the Opposite Party
Ex-A2	Original Legal notice dt.7.6.2016 issued to Opposite Party along with acknowledgement card & receipt

 

 

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)   PRESIDENT