CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.03/2005
SH. SUKHBIR SINGH
S/O SH. HARPAL SINGH
R/O A-15, 1ST FLOOR, RIGHT BACK,
DAYAL BAGH COLONY,
FARIDABAD-121009
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
- M/S BRIGHTPOINT INDIA PVT. LTD.,
76, OKHLA PAHSE-III,
NEW DELHI
- M/S PARDASANI & ASSOCIATES,
I-30, LAJPAT NAGAR II,
NEW DELHI-110024
- NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD.
SP INFOCITY,
INDUSTRIAL PLOT NO.243,
UDYOG VIHAR, PHASE I,
DUNDAHERA, GURGAON,
HARYANA-122016
………….. RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:22.02.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
Initially the complaint was filed against OP-1 who is authorized service centre of OP-3. Later on OP-2(dealer) and OP-3(manufacturer) were also impleaded.
The case of the complainant as per amended complaint is that he purchased a mobile phone on 06.04.2005 from OP-2 for a sum of Rs.25,245/. Since the day of purchase, complainant was facing network problem in handset and hence complainant contacted with the service provider(Airtel) but the problem was not solved. On 20.04.2005 complainant went to OP-1 for rectification of the problem. OP-1 repaired the mobile phone and also replaced the motherboard and returned the mobile set to complainant on 07.05.2005. The said mobile phone developed further problem of automatic switch off and low battery as the battery was running out from voice. The mobile phone set was again deposited with OP-1 on 27.05.2005 and OP-1 returned the same on 31.05.2005 after allegedly replacing the motherboard. On 02.06.2005 the mobile phone again developed problem of switch off and the same was deposited with OP-1 and the same was returned on 03.06.2005 after upgradation of software. On 06.06.2005 the mobile phone was deposited with OP-1 who changed the motherboard and returned mobile phone on the same day. Even thereafter the same problem occurred and OP-1 informed complainant that it has got manufacturing defect hence the mobile set needs to be replaced with a new one by OP-2. But till date the mobile set was not returned by OP-1. It is prayed that OP be directed to pay the sum of Rs.66,745/- to complainant on account of the cost of the mobile set, compensation and interest @ 18% p.a.
OP-1 in the reply took the plea that complaint merits dismissal for non-joinder of parties i.e. vendor and manufacturer of the mobile handset.
It is further stated that on 07.05.2005 the handset was brought by complainant to OP-1 with a problem of no service intermittent. Complainant was advised to check with his network operator but due to the persistent persuasion by the complainant, OP-1 exchanged the handset and handed over to complainant a swapped handset. On 27.05.2005 complainant again visited OP-1 with the problem of “Switches off and low battery capacity”. Complaint was attended by OP-1 and the handset was handed over to complainant on 30.05.2005 with the instructions not to use his memory card since it was corrupted. On 31.05.2005 complainant again visited OP-1 with the complaint against the handset being totally dead. Inspite of caution given by OP-1 not to use the corrupted memory card in the handset, complainant continued to use the same and as a result the handset gone dead. However, as goodwill gesture and the set of complainant being under warranty, OP-1 exchanged the handset and handed over another swapped set to complainant on 01.06.2005. Complainant again visited OP-1 on 02.06.2005 with a plethora of complaint against the functionalities of the swapped set. After upgrading the handset it was handed over to complainant on 03.06.2005. On 06.06.2005 complainant visited OP-1 with the complaint that the swapped handset was not switching on. The handset of the complainant at the insistence of the complainant was swapped vide exchange note dated 13.06.2005. Thereafter complainant was repeatedly called up by OP-1 to collect the swapped handset but till date complainant neither contacted nor responded to OP-1 regarding his handset. It is prayed that complaint be dismissed.
It is significant to note that initially complainant has not stated in his original complaint that he visited the Airtel in respect of network problem. However, in the amended complaint he has stated that he visited the Airtel for network problem. It is stated by OP-1 in the reply that he stated so only because OP-1 has advised complainant to visit the network.
Though complainant in the rejoinder denied the contention of OP that he was advised to visit the network. However, in present amended complaint he has taken a plea that he visited network. It is stated by Ld. Counsel for OP that false plea has been taken by complainant.
In the rejoinder complainant denied that OP exchanged the handset and handed over to complainant a swapped handset. It is submitted that only IMEI number was changed as the motherboard was replaced by a repaired motherboard and again on 31.5.05 the said motherboard was replaced by another repaired motherboard. It is denied that complainant was apprised that the capacity of battery varies as per the usage or that memory card was corrupted. It is denied that complaint has made reckless use of the handset. It is denied that OP gave repeated calls to complainant to collect the handset from the service centre. It is stated that complaint made several calls to the service centre which a matter of record and every time he was informed by OP that the handset had not been rectified.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
It is not disputed that the handset developed a problem and was taken to OP and OP repaired the handset and handover the same to complainant on 07.5.05. Complainant has specifically stated that there was no question of handing over the new handset only the IMEI number was change as the motherboard was replaced. It is also proved that again there was a problem in the handset and complaint visited on 27.5.05 to OP-1 the same was again repaired and handed over to complainant on 30.5.05. Complainant visited again to OP-1 as the handset was totally dead. The same again handed over to complainant on 01.6.05 again after change of motherboard. Complainant again visited the service centre of OP-1 on 02.6.05 as the handset developed number of problems. Handset was handed over to complaint on 03.6.05 after repairing. Complainant again visited the service centre of OP-1 on 06.6.5 as the handset was not switching on. As per OP the handset was exchange however complaint has not collected the handset despite number of calls made to him to collect the same. Complaint has specifically stated that he was contacted OP-1 number of times however the handset was not returned.
It is clear that the handset has developed problem immediately after purchasing the same and it is almost out or order everyday. Under these circumstances it was the duty of OP-3 to replace the handset with a new handset being the manufacturer. The fact is that the handset remained with OP-1. At this stage it is of no use to direct the OP-3 to hand over the new handset to complaint. The interest of justice will suffice if OP-1 is directed to refund Rs.25,245/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint and also to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- for litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
