BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 27th day of February, 2006.
C.C.No.176/2005
Venugopal S/o Krishnamurthy, Aged 40 years,
Teachers Colony, H.No.4/149/77, Dhone, Kurnool Dist.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
M/s Sai Sharan Communications, Rep.by its Proprietor,
D.No.40-321-55, Abdullakhan Estates, Kurnool.
. . . Opposite party
This complaint coming on 24.02.2006 for arguments in the presence of Sri M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri B.V.Ramana Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party, and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Member)
1. This Consumer Complaint of the complainant is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction on the opposite party to pay Rs.16,800/- towards cost of the mobile handset, Rs.4,300/- as cost of additional software loading memory card, Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony, cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitle in the circumstances of the case.
2.The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant on 25-9-2004 purchased a Nokia – 6600 mobile handset for Rs.16,800/- from opposite party vide receipt No.33 and the complaint paid Rs.4,300/- towards loading additional software and memory card and the said mobile handset was having 12 months warranty. Within a one month of its purchased the said set seized functioning and on approach to opposite party for rectification of defects it was rectified and returned. Again on 4-4-2005 the complainant approached the opposite party as the said set developed defects and handed over the said set to opposite party which was acknowledged by opposite party and the said set was not returned to the complainant rectifying the defects so far. Being vexed the complainant got issued legal notice dated 19-9-2005 and the opposite party did neither replied nor responded to the said notice. The said conduct of opposite party constrained the complainant to seek redressal in this Forum.
3. In substantiation of its case the complainant relied on the following documents viz (1) Nokia manual with warranty (2) Acknowledgement by opposite party as to the receipt of complainant’s set for repair on 4-4-2005 (3) Legal notice dated 19-9-2005 issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite party (4) Postal receipt bearing No.3995 dated 20-9-2005 as to the sending of Ex.A3 and (5) Postal acknowledgement as to the receipt of Ex.A3 by opposite party, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of its written version and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A5 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant suitabely replied to the interrogatories caused by the opposite party and caused interrogatories to opposite party.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party made its appearance through its counsel and filed written version questioning the maintainability of the complainant’s case either in law or on facts.
5. The written version of opposite parties admits that the complainant purchased Nokia mobile handset from opposite party on 25-9-2004 for sum of Rs.16,800/- and also admits the complainant has given the said set for repair and inturn the opposite party has sent the same to Nokia Company, Hyderabad for repairs and came to know that the handset is put in water and so it cannot be repaired and it is dead and the same was informed to the complainant and requested him to take the said set. The opposite party also alleges that he is only a sub-dealer of Nokia Corporation and doing business on behalf of Nokia Corporation and the complaint is not maintainable for none joinder of necessary party i.e. Nokia Corporation and it is the said Nokia Corporation which is responsible for any defects in the handset of the complainant and seeks for dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. In substantiation of its case, the opposite parties filed its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its written version and did not file any documents. The opposite party caused interrogatories to the complainant and suitabely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging the deficiency of service on part of opposite party:?
8. It is a simple case of complainant that he purchased a Nokia handset from opposite party for Rs.16,800/- vide bill No.33 within a month of the said purchased the said set seized functioning and on approach the opposite party rectified, again on 4-4-2005 the said set was handed over to opposite party as it developed defects. The Ex.A1 is the Nokia users manual of the said set 6600, on the last page of the said manual it is mentioned that the said set was having 12 months warranty from the date of purchase, therefore what appears is that the defects developed in the said set are within the warranty period. The Ex.A2 in Ex.A1 envisages that the said set was handed over to opposite party on 4-4-2005 for repair, inspite of repeated requests and approaches the opposite party did not rectify the defects in the said set nor returned to the complainant. But as against to it, the written version of opposite party alleges that on taking the handset of the complainant, it was sent to Nokia Company, Hyderabad for repairs and it was found that the said set was put in water and cannot be repaired and set is dead. In the absence of any cogent substance or any material in support of supra stated contentions of the opposite party the said contentions of opposite party has no merit and force.
9. The Ex.A3 is the lawyers notice dated 19-9-2005 issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite party, it envisages the same grievance that the said handset was handed over to opposite party on 4-4-2005 and the same was not returned after rectifying necessary repairs, hence, alleges deficiency of service on the opposite party, the said Ex.A3 was acknowledged by opposite party vide Ex.A5, even after receiving the said Ex.A3 the opposite party did not made any endeavor to inform the complainant that it was found by the Nokia Company, Hyderabad that the set was put in water, hence, the said contentions of opposite party on this aspect not only limits highly inconsistence but also there by untrustworthy and as consisting of any bonafidies.
10. The other contentions of the opposite party is that it is the responsibility of the manufacturer of the mobile handset to care for the repair/replacement/refund of the price of the mobile handset. It was also contended that he is only a sub-dealer of Nokia Company and is in no way responsible as he sold the goods which were supplied by the manufacturer to him. None of the above contentions are tenable as the dealer is the person who in the market comes in direct with the consumer and he assures about the quality of the goods sold and in case the consumer complainant had any problem with the mobile handset, the dealer is under obligation to refer the matter to the manufacturer for necessary reliefs, which in the instance case not done.
11. Therefore, what follows is that the complainant’s mobile handset which was handed over to opposite party for repairs was not returned after attending its repairs and the pleas taken by the opposite party remained as plea for plea sake without any bonafidies. Hence, their appears every bonafidies of the complainant in his agitation on the said grievance and there is deficiency of service on the side of the opposite party in that regard. Thus the complainant is entitled to the cost of the mobile handset and cost of the complaint and the remaining reliefs are rejected as there is no material placed in substantiating the said reliefs.
12. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.16,800/- towards cost of the Nokia mobile handset along with costs of Rs.1,000/- within a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite party shall pay the supra awarded amount with 12% interest per annum from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 27th day of February 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite party: Nil
Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Nokia manual with warranty
Ex.A2 Acknowledgement by opposite party as to the receipt of complainant’s set
for repair on 4-4-2005
Ex.A3 Legal notice dated 19-9-2005 issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite
party
Ex.A4 Postal receipt bearing No.3995 dated 20-9-2005 as to the sending of
Ex.A3
Ex.A5 Postal acknowledgement as to the receipt of Ex.A3 by opposite party
Exhibits Marked for the opposite party: Nil
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri. M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool
2. Sri. B.V.Ramana Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
