<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 30.10.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 17th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2322/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.S.Suresh,Aged about 32 years,S/o C.Swaminathan,Residing at 112/1, 2nd Cross,6th Block, Rajajinagar,Bangalore – 560 010.Advocate – Sri.Ganesh Bhat Y.HV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. M/s.Nokia India Private Limited.,5th Floor, Tower A & B,Cybergreen, DLF Cyber City,Sector 25-A, Gurgaon,Haryana – 122 002.Represented by itsManaging Director.2. M/s.Nokia India Private Limited.,No.88, Brigade Chambers,GB Road, Basavanagudi,Bangalore – 560 004.Advocate – Sri.K.Nikesh Shetty3. M/s.Concepts INC.(Nokia India Private Limited authorized dealer)No.LG-3, “The Pavilion”,No.62 & 63, M.G Road,(Entrance from Church Street, Bangalore – 560 001)4. M/s.Bright Caree,(Nokia India Private Limited authorized Nokia Care Centre)No.25/1, Sreekanta Mahal,I Floor, I Cross,Sampige Road, Malleshwaram,Bangalore – 560 003.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to replace the defective mobile handset or refund the cost of the same and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant purchased one N-95 model Nokia cell phone manufactured by OP.1 through his dealer OP.3 on 03.09.2007 for a total cost of Rs.29,000/-. It carried one year warranty. OP.2 & 4 inter connected with each other with regard to service to the product. Unfortunately complainant is unable to utilize the said cell phone to his satisfaction because of certain inherent innumerable problems with the said set, namely bad display, blank screen, audio defect, keypad defect, power switch off, memory defects etc. In that regard he approached OP.4 for the repairs on 30.04.2008 thereafter on 16.05.2008 then on 10.06.2008 so also on 15.07.2008. Though OP promised to repair the said set but it is unable to detect the defect and cure the same. Due to the repeated defects noticed in one or the other way by the complainant he felt that there is an inherent manufacturing defect. Though he made requests to OP to replace the said set with a brand new one defect free all his efforts went in futile. Complainant invested his hard earned money but unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Under such circumstances he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP’s. Accordingly he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP.1 & 2 filed their respective version. OP.3 & 4 didn’t participate in the proceedings. The defence set out by the OP.1 & 2 is almost similar and identical. According to them there is a bad handling of the said set. Defects noticed are curable defects ordinary wear and tear. Complainant extensively used the said phone for more than 7 months from the date of its purchase. Warranty is only for one year. The defect noticed in the said set are almost beyond the scope of repairs because of its bad handling. As and when complainant brought the said phone for repairs, it was duly attended. Under the circumstances there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP’s are prepared to repair it and replace some parts if required. There is no obligation on the part of the OP either to refund or replace the said set with a brand new one. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP.1 & 2 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP.1 & 2 have also filed their affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP’s?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant being carried away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP with regard to the performance, efficacy, length of life of Nokia N-95 model cell phone he purchased the same with a cost of Rs.29,000/- on 03.09.2007 from OP.3. It is manufactured by OP.1, OP.2 & 4 are inter-connected with OP.1 & 3 in one or the other way with regard to sale and service of the said set. The fact that the said phone carried one year warranty is also not at dispute.<br /> <br /> 7. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that he experienced several defects in the said set namely that of bad display, audio defect, keypad defect, power switch defect, memory defect, set hang up etc. Hence he approached the OP.4 and gave his set for repairs not once but for four times namely on 30.04.2008, 16.05.2008, 10.06.2008 and 15.07.2008. The result is one and the same. OP’s are unable to detect the defect and cure the same. When he contacted other OP’s they shifted the burden on OP.4 and in turn transferred the headache from one OP to another. Complainant being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP made several correspondence. Copies of the correspondence are produced so also that of service job sheet issued by the OP.<br /> <br /> 8. On the perusal of the service job sheet there is a reference with respect to power supply defect, poor audio with regard to incoming calls, bad pixel, display, reboots, poor reception, bad receiving etc. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the above said undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. Though complainant invested his hard earned money of Rs.29,000/- he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment.<br /> <br /> 9. Complainant took the said cell phone for repairs not once but for 4 to 5 times that speaks to the inherent manufacturing defect with the said handset. The defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake just to shirk their responsibility and obligation. We are satisfied that complainant is able to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances he is entitled for the relied claimed. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP’s are jointly and severally directed to replace the said defective handset with a brand new defect free hand set of the same model for the same cost and take back the defective set sold to the complainant. In default to refund the cost of the said hand set of Rs.29,000/- and pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. This order is to be complied with in four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 17th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br />