Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

238/2008

Mano Ranjjan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s India mobile Network Pvt Ltd and 2 others - Opp.Party(s)

R.Venkata varathan

01 Sep 2015

ORDER

                                                                         Date of Filing :   26.03. 2008

                                                                        Date of Order :   01.09.2015.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A.L.L.B.,                                  : MEMBER I

 

                                         C.C.NO.238/2008

TUESDAY THIS 1^st  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015

 

Mano Ranjjan,

SP-6, Fourth Street,

First Sector, K.K. Nagar,

Chennai 600 078.                                           ..Complainant

                                                 ..Vs..

 

1. M/s. India Mobile Network Pvt. Ltd.,

    Rep. by its Manager,

    Nokia Priority Dealer,

    Rep. by its Manager,

    15/16, Dr. Nair Road, T.Nagar,

    Chennai – 17.

 

2. M/s. Nokia Professional Centre (Service Centre),

    Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

    Shop No.5, Aarthi Chambers,

    189, Anna Salai, Chennai -2.

 

3. M/s. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.,

    Rep. by its Managing Director,

    2^nd Floor, Commercial Plaza,

    Radission Hotel, NH-8,

    Mahipalpur,

    New Delhi – 37.                                       .. Opposite parties.

 

 For the Complainant           :  M/s. R.Venkata Varathan & another 

 

For the 1^st Opposite party     :  M/s. L. Raghavan

 

For the 2^nd  opposite party    :  Exparte.

 

For the 3^rd opposite party     :  M/s. K.Ravikumar.  

 

        This complaint is being filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 to refund a sum of Rs.18900/- towards the price of the Handset with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of earning of complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards damages for the mental agony and physical sufferings with cost of the complaint to the complainant. 

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

         

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-

           The complainant decided to purchase a mobile phone and he had enquired in the market about the product of 3^rd opposite party.   The complainant came to know that the product namely N-70 Series instrument which is the product of 3^rd opposite party is best instrument in the market.   Therefore the complainant decided to purchase the N-70 series instrument which have all configuration required by the complainant, from a Nokia priority dealer for after sales service, when the same is available at lesser price in the market.      

2.     The complainant purchased Nokia N-70 series instrument having IMEI No.35938100628222 herein after referred as “Handset from the 1^st opposite party vide cash memo No.C06071252 dated 17.11.2006 for Rs.18900/-.  From the date of purchase of the Handset the defects  occurs.  The display is appearing every minute with emanating light above few products feature which consumers lot of battery, caused lot of disturbance, divert attention during discussions, meetings.   Even in the night time it disturb the sleep.  The complainant complained the same to the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party tried to rectify the defects.  However the 1^st opposite party unable to rectify the same who in turn asked him to approach the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre for the 3^rd opposite party.     The complainant went to the 2^nd opposite party and explained the defects to the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that due to the software problem the above defects was occurred and if the software to be reloaded the defects will be rectified.   The complainant asked the 2^nd opposite party to rectify the defects and the 2^nd opposite party issued the service job sheet.   After rectifying the defects the complainant got the handset from the 2^nd opposite party.

3.     Only on believing the word of the 2^nd opposite party the complaint got the handset and he using the same.  Though the defects were said to be rectified by the 2^nd opposite party the same problem and other defects like un-registering the received, dialed and missed call numbers were continuing.  After the complainant verifying the handset he notified that it did not registered the dialed, received and missed call numbers.    By the above defects of the handset the complainant lost his sincerity and loyalty and his goodwill among his superiors. 

4.     Again  on 14.12.2006 the complainant handover the handset to the 1^st opposite party and they have given to the 2^nd opposite party for rectification of the defects i.e. non appearance of call lock / register and display of lighting any time.  The opposite parties gave back  the handset to the complainant on 22.12.2006 stating that they have done the software up-dation and rectified the other defects.    The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party and requested them to replace the handset the 2^nd opposite party received the handset from the complainant and issued a job sheet dated 4.1.2007 and asked the complainant to come after when they call him.  The 2^nd opposite party call the complainant after few days, the complainant went to the 2^nd opposite party office to believing that the 2^nd opposite party  will replace the handset.  However to his shock and surprise the 2^nd opposite party hand over the same handset to the complainant. 

5.     The same defects were occurred again  and the complainant again approached the 1^st and 2^nd  opposite parties and the questioned about the assurance given by the 2^nd opposite party.  However the 2^nd opposite party did not properly response to the complainant.   The complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party over website on 5.2.2007 stating that continuous defects in his product.   Though the 3^rd opposite party received the email on the same day till date of complainant did not received any reply from the 3^rd opposite party.    As such the act of the opposite parties are amounts to deficiency of service and which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.   Hence the complaint. 

6.  Written version of  1^st  opposite party  is   as follows:-

The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in law and on the facts of the case.   The opposite party does not admit any of the allegations contained in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted herein.   The complainant  has made the purchase from the 1^st opposite party on his own volition and priority.   The 1^st opposite party had never pressurized or compelled the complainant to buy the instrument as averred  by the complainant.   The 1^st opposite party on receipt of the defects communicated by the complainant, immediately directed the complainant to contact the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre to the 3^rd opposite party.   The defects were duly rectified by the 2^nd opposite party and was informed by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant the defects will not arise in future.  The 1^st opposite party is the dealer for selling the product of 3^rd opposite party and have no power to replace the  handset and directed the complainant to approach the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties for replacement and the 1^st opposite  party is not liable to pay any cost to the damages alleged by the complainant and prays to dismiss the complaint.

7.     Even after receipt of the notice, the  2^nd opposite party  did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version on his behalf.   Hence the  2^nd  opposite party was set exparte on 2.12.2008.

8.  Written version of  3^rd opposite party  is   as follows:-

        The complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous.   The 3^rd  opposite party is only the manufacturer of the mobile set.  On account of ulterior motive, the complainant has indulged himself in leveling false allegation against the answering  3^rd opposite party that are totally and completely concocted.   The complainant’s case is sheer reflection of misuse of the mobile phone.  Hence the answering  3^rd opposite party cannot be held responsible for irresponsible and careless and negligent handling of the mobile phone by the complainant in this regard.    The 3^rd opposite party as importer of the hand set in any manner does not arise and no defect arose in the manufacture of the hand set as the answering opposite party takes all reasonable care in carrying out proper quality control and testing before delivery into market.   Further no examination report to establish that the defect was major defect is adduced by the complainant and prays to dismiss the complaint.

9.     Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Opposite parties 1 & 3 have filed their  proof affidavit and no document was marked on the side of the opposite parties.

10. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1.    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

 

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

11.  Point Nos.1 & 2: 

        Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, written version filed by the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties,  the  proof  affidavit filed by complainant and opposite parties 1 & 3  and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 filed on the side of the complainant and considered both side arguments. 

12.    There is no dispute that the complainant has purchased  complaint mentioned Nokia Cell phone with handset for Rs.18,900/- from the 1^st opposite party on 17.11.2006  as per Ex.A1 invoice.  The complainant has stated that after purchase of the said Cell phone, it was not properly functioning and there were defect in the functioning as it consumes lot of battery.   As such for rectification / repair he approached the 1^st opposite party in the month of January 2007 i.e. two months after purchase of the said cell phone and on the direction of the 1^st opposite party the complainant has approached the 2^nd opposite party which is authorized service station for repair who had issued the job sheet which is filed as document along with this complaint (omitted to mark as Exhibit)  in which it is mentioned reported fault i.e. Power, Phone Locks UP, Not Responding SIM BATT MMC Returned, software to be loaded calls not getting registered.  However the complainant himself has stated that after attended by the 2^nd opposite party Service Station, the Cell phone was received by him from them on the  assurance given by the 2^nd opposite party that the defects were rectified.  However the complainant has stated that despite of  their assurance the cell phone again not properly functioning and same problem were occurred and he approached the 1^st opposite party for the same and the 1^st opposite party by attending the said complaint he has removed the battery and installed the handset and stated that then it will be working and asking the software updation, the complainant also did the same as per the direction of the 1^st opposite party.    However the defects did not rectified.   Again on 14.12.2006  the complainant through the 1^st opposite party the said Cell phone was given to the 2^nd opposite party for rectification of the defects such as non appearance of  call lock / register and display of lighting any time.,  After that the  2^nd opposite party has handed over the said cell phone to the complainant on 22.12.2006 stating that the software of the said cell phone was up dated and defects were rectified.  Despite of receipt  of the same by the complainant on their assurance, the said cell phone is not properly functioning and again the complainant has approached the 2^nd opposite party  on 2.2.2007 after verification of defects the 2^nd opposite party also given a job sheet Ex.A7,  dated 24.3.2007 in which it is mentioned has reported fault i.e. Connectivity, Drops Bluetooth connection Sim, Bat, MEM Returned   and Bluetooth connection was working properly received dialed No. not saved.  However the handset was returned by the opposite party to the complainant stating that the defects were rectified.    The defects and the compliant in respect of the cell phone functioning has not been completely rectified and the problem of the said cell phone is continued, so that the complainant has issued web site complaint to the 3^rd opposite party.   The 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer,  no proper reply sent by the 3^rd opposite party.   As such the complaint filed by the complainant stating that the cell phone is defective of manufacturing defect as such  despite of attempt made by the opposite parties 1 & 2 has not come forward to replace the said cell phone by giving new one as such the complainant seeking for return of the cost of Rs.18,900/-  with interest there on with compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- lakhs for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the non functioning of the said Cell phone in proper manner and also with costs.

13.    However the proof affidavit filed by the complainant, the job sheet issued by the 2^nd opposite party dated 4.1.2007 and 24.3.2007 are proves that the cell phone purchased by the complainant from the opposite party which has been manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party and repair work attended by the 2^nd opposite party which is the authorized service station of the 3^rd opposite party have not properly functioned within few days after the purchase of the cell phone and which caused inconvenient for the complainant to the same is acceptable.   However the 2^nd opposite party who attended the repair work and issued the job sheet regarding the defect of the cell phone has remained exparte in this proceedings.  

14.    The 1^st opposite party who has sold the said cell phone to the complainant has not denied the event narrated by the complainant in the compliant regarding the defects of the cell phone and approach made by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party in their written version and proof affidavit specifically.   However contended for replacement of Cell phone or return of the cost of the cell phone is not meet out of the opposite parties, since the said Cell phone is defective and not properly functioning which is manufacturered by the 3^rd opposite party the 3^rd opposite party alone is liable to claim made by the complainant as such the 1^st opposite party is not responsible for the warranty given by the 3^rd opposite party for the said Cell phone.  

15.    However the 3^rd opposite party has raised objection that as mentioned in the pamphlet given along with the purchase of the said cell phone the warranty is not covered for the miss handling of the cell phone and caused damage to the cell phone by water and fire etc in mis- handling of the cell phone by the complainant.   As such the 3^rd opposite party is not liable to fulfill the claim made by the complainant in the complaint.  As such the complaint has to be dismissed against the 3^rd opposite party.    But the 3^rd opposite party has not proved that the said cell phone was repaired due to the mishandling by complainant and caused damages due to water or fire.

16.    However considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the said cell phone purchased by the complainant from the 1^st opposite party which was manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party within the warranty period i.e. 12 months period the said cell phone within two months from the date of purchase of the cell phone has not functioning properly and the same was informed and the complainant has approached the 1^st opposite party & 2^nd opposite party for repair of the said defects in the Cell phone despite of his attempt made and the 2^nd opposite party who as authorized service station  and the 3^rd opposite party who as manufacturer of the said cell phone also attended the repair work two or three times and job sheet also given mentioning the defects etc. in respect of        their attending repair work the said cell phone repeatedly not functioning properly is proved by the complainant.  Therefore the 3^rd opposite party being the vendor of the said cell phone as the manufacturer of the said cell phone  and the repair works attended by the 2^nd opposite party who as authorized service station have not taken any steps to rectify the defects of the said Cell phone in proper manner within the warranty period and also not taken any steps to replace the said cell phone as demanded by the complainant.  Therefore the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable  or responsible for the complainant for the said cell phone purchased on 17.11.2006 and subsequent to it within two months the said cell phone was not properly functioning and despite of three times or four times attended by the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party for repair have not completely  and not functioning properly.  However the said cell phone still with custody of the complainant. 

17.    Therefore we are of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally   directed to pay  a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the said amount of Rs.15,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order to till the date of payment  and also to pay  a  sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the complaint  to the complainant and as such the points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.  

          In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.   The  opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally   directed to pay  a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the said amount of Rs.15,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order to till the date of payment  and also to pay  a  sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the complaint  to the complainant within six weeks from the date of  this order.  

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this  1^st    day of September  2015.

 

MEMBER-I                                                                                                         PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1- 17.11.2006    - Copy of Cash memo.

Ex.A2- 7.12.2006      - Copy of letter to M/s. Metro Films Private Ltd. to the commercial Tax

                               Department, Chennai.

 

Ex.A3- 7.12.2006      - Copy of letter from M/s. Vision Fortune to the Commercial Tax

                               Department, Chennai.

 

Ex.A4- 11.12.2006    - Copy of letter from Additional Director General of Police, Vigilance.

 

Ex.A5- 5.2.2007        - Copy of email to the manufacturer.

 

Ex.A6- Mar’2, 5 -07   - Copy of Manual of Gem & Jeweler

 

Ex.7    -                 - Copy of Service Job sheet.  

 

 

Opposite parties’ side documents: -    

 

               .. Nil ..

 

 

MEMBER-I                                                                                                    PRESIDENT.