BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 29th day of September 2011
Filed on : 17/02/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 95/2011
Between
Mathew Kuriakose, : Complainant
S/o. Kurikose, A16, (By Adv. Millu Dandapani
Sakthi Enclave, Perandoor road, Dandapani Associates, “Thrupthi”
North End, Elamakkara, T.D. Road North end,
Kochi-682 026. Cochin-682 035)
And
M/s. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., : Opposite party
4F Tower A & B, Cybergreen, (Absent)
DLF Cyber City, Sector 25A,
Gurgaon, Hariyana-122 022,
rep. by its General Manager.
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant purchased a new Nokia mobile phone. When the phone started showing complaints one after another it was brought to the authorized service centre at Cochin where formatting was done. When the complaint repeated, the strip was changed according to the advice of the service centre. The service centre levied Rs. 1,226/- on different heads stating that the one year warranty period had expired. Thereafter, the battery of the phone was also changed by spending Rs. 590/-. Still the phone is not completely free of defects. The real source of repeated defects is defective manufacturing of the impugned telephone. This Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because the telephone was got repaired at the opposite party’s authorized service centre at Banerji road, Ernakulam. Hence it is urged on the Forum to direct the opposite party to execute the reliefs sought in the complaint.
2. The sole opposite party having its place of business in Hariyana did not file any version.
3. Complainant produced three documents which were marked as Exts. A1 to A3. No other evidence for him. Initially opposite party was represented. But thereafter no response from opposite party. Counsel was heard.
4. The following short points require answer.
i. Whether the impugned telephone suffers from manufacturing defect?
ii. What are the reliefs, if any
5. Point No. i. The main allegation raised against the impugned mobile phone is that its suffers from manufacturing defects. Complainant contends that immediately after the expiry of the one year warranty period, the gadget has been brought to the authorized service centre on many occasions for repair. He admits that these defects were cured. But his grievance is that services were not rendered free of cost but it were heavily charged. In this regard, complainant draws our attention of the Forum to the frequency of complaints of different nature, we have no evidence before us to indicate the credibility of those averments. But in view of the abstention, that too deliberate, of the opposite party from adducing evidence and contesting the case, it can be safely concluded that opposite party has nothing to say against those averments. The deliberate passive response from the opposite party would embolden the Forum to draw adverse inference against them. It is significant to note that at one stage they were represented and were willing for a settlement. But thereafter they back out unilaterally providing an easy walk over to the complainant. We are thereafter constraint to allow the complaint substantially by holding that the gadget under dispute suffers from manufacturing defect.
6. Point No.ii. There are altogether five reliefs sought by the complainant against the manufacturer. Among them, the request for replacement is the prominent one. We do not think this relief is without merit in view of our finding that the phone fell short of manufacturing perfection which is evident from the frequency with which the same was brought to the service centre for repairs of different nature. In view of the relief of replacement being allowed, we do not find it reasonable to allow any other relief except the costs of the litigation.
7. To sum up, the complaint is allowed as follows:
i. Opposite party shall replace the mobile phone under dispute by hazzle free unit of the same quality, brand, capacity and price.
ii. Opposite party shall pay Rs. 1,000/- by way of costs of proceedings in the Forum.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th day of September 2011
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits:
Ext. A1 : retail invoice
A2 : Bill dt. 30/05/2009
A3 : Retail Invoice dt. 26/03/2010
Opposite party’s Exhibits: Nil
