BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri Patil Vithal Rao, B.Sc., LL.B.,President

Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member

Friday, the 20^th day of September, 2013

CC. No. 02 of 2013

Between:

G. Ramulu S/o Vaijugonda,

Aged: 42 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee,

R/o H.No. 6-2-125, Shivaji Nagar,

Sangareddy town, Medak District.                                           ……Complainant

                   And

1. M/s Veerabhadra Mobiles,
2.  

Opp: Rythu Bazar, Main Road,

Sangareddy, District Medak – 502 001.

1. The Care Manager,

M/s Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.,

SP Info city, Industrial Plot # 243,

Udyog Vihar, Phase I, Dundahera,

Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 016.

                                                                               ……Opposite parties

This case came up for final hearing before us on 13.09.2013 in the presence of Sri B. Ravinder Raju Varma, Advocate for complainant, Opposite parte no. 1 set exparte and the case against opposite party no. 2 is dismissed in default and  on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Per Se Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member)

                   The complainant, G. Ramulu resident of Sangareddy town approached this Forum by way of the present complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, claiming replacement of his mobile phone and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and any other costs. His contention in brief, is that on 29.11.2011, he purchased a Nokia cell phone bearing Model No. N-C1-01, Red, IMEI No. 359276047417111, charger bearing no. 4818711396051006483, battery no. 06704005241525 vide bill no. 2019 dated 29.11.2011 for an amount of Rs. 2,250/- from the opposite party no. 1 with a warranty card for one year. Having purchased it, the phone was not working properly within six months. The automatic display was not functioning and it would get disconnected.

                   On 18.07.2012 he deposited the phone with the opposite party no. 1 and was asked to collect it after two days. Again after 10 days the mobile phone started giving the same trouble and the complainant informed the same to opposite party no. 1 and he was informed that there was a software problem due to which the SIM was blocked.

                   The complainant contacted the opposite party no. 2 but there was no response. The opposite party no. 1 was also negligent and asked him to contact opposite party no. 2 – the manufacturer, stating that he is responsible for the defect. As the opposite parties failed to respond, he has filed this present complaint.

2.            Opposite party no. 1 set exparte.

3.            The case against opposite party no. 2 is dismissed in default.

4.         The complainant filed his evidence affidavit as PW. 1 and marked Ex. A1 to A5. Oral submissions and written arguments of the complainant were not submitted, despite several adjournments.

5.               Point for consideration is that, whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and what relief the complainant is entitled to?

Point:

6.           There is no doubt that the complainant purchased the mobile phone on 29.11.2011 for an amount of Rs. 2,250/- from opposite party no. 1. He has filed Ex. A1, the invoice with details of the model no. IMEI NO: 359276047417111, charger bearing no. 4818711396051006483 & battery no. 06704005241525. Ex. A2 is the legal notice issued to both the opposite parties. In this the complainant’s counsel has clearly stated that he bought the Nokia Cell Phone on 29.11.2011 and that he approached opposite party no. 1 on 18.07.2012 because the phone was not functioning properly. Although notice was served on opposite party no. 1, they did not respond. Ex. A3 and A4 are the postal receipts.

7.                Ex.A5 is the (booklet supplied by Nokia) user guide with warranty period details. Here (page 66) it is mentioned 12 months as warranty period from the date of purchase. Also mentioned clearly is that the purchaser should contact their Nokia Care Centre in the event of any malfunctioning of the phone. Although necessary care was taken by the complainant the opposite

parties failed in fulfilling their responsibility and have been very negligent. It is to be noted that the legal notice under Ex. A2 was duly issued by the complainant on 05.11.2012, i.e. well within the period of limitation. Opposite parties no. 1 & 2 also failed to respond to the notices issued by this Forum. The complainant was well within the 12 months warranty period and deserved better treatment as a purchaser of mobile phone from a Multi National Company.  Thus for all the anguish and negligence caused by the opposite parties the complaint is fit to be allowed.

8.                The point is answered accordingly against the opposite party no. 1.

9.                In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party no. 1 to replace the mobile phone and pay compensation of Rs. 2,500/- to the complainant. The complaint against opposite party no. 2 is dismissed. Time for compliance: one month.

                     Dictated to Stenographer, after transcription and correction the order is pronounced by us in the open court today on this the 20^th day of September, 2013.

           Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                              WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

                              Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

 LADY MEMBER                                   PRESIDENT

Copy to

1. The Complainant
2. The Opp.parties
   1. Spare copy