COMPLAINT FILED: 28.08.2009 <br /> DISPOSED ON 14.05.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 14TH MAY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2091/2009<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Dr. Ramachandra Prabhu,<br /> S/o Dr. H.R. Doddaiah,<br /> Aged about 37 years,<br /> R/at No.1072, 11th Main,<br /> II Stage, Mahalakshmipura,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri K.S.Manjegowda<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. M/s Akshar’s Telecom,<br /> # 16, East Circle Road,<br /> V.V. Puram,<br /> Bangalore – 560 004.<br /> <br /> 2. M/s Nokia Care,<br /> # 183, 2nd Floor,<br /> Poojyayaarcade,<br /> Opp: Rotighar Basavanagudi,<br /> Bangalore – 560 004.<br /> <br /> 3. The Care Manager,<br /> Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> 5-F, Tower A & B,<br /> Cybergreen DLF,<br /> Cyber City, Sector 25-A,<br /> Gurgan – 122 002,<br /> Haryana State. <br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri K. Nikesh Shetty <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) for compensation of Rs.54,900/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. <br /> <br /> 2. On 16.02.2009 complainant who is a doctor by profession purchased one set of Nokia Mobile phone Model bearing No.5800 IMEI No.354182026431989 for a sum of Rs.18,900/- from OP-1, who is a dealer and OP-3 is the manufacturer. The invoice issued by OP-1 is produced. After two months of purchase complainant found that same was not working properly. Hence complainant contacted OP-1. The OP-1 advised the complainant to approach OP-2 service centre for repair. As per the advice of OP-1 complainant approached OP-2 and handed over the mobile set for repair on 13.04.2009. OP-2 assured the complainant that the defects will be get rectified. Complainant received the mobile set after repair from the OP-2 and used the same for a couple of days. The same problem persisted again. The complainant intimated the problem to OP-1 and 2. Again handed over the mobile set to OP-2 and requested OPs to change the hand set or return the amount. OPs accepted the same. But after a few days OPs refused to gave new hand set or refund the amount for one or other reason. Hence complainant caused the legal notice on 12.06.2009 demanding to change the handset immediately or to return the amount with interest at 24% p.a. After that OP-2 gave reply requesting the complainant to collect the handset as the same has been repaired and ready to dispatch. Accordingly complainant collected the mobile set from the OP-2 and used for few days. Again the same problem persisted i.e., call drops, doesn’t switch on, display backlight goes off, touch screen is not working, hanging etc., On 29.07.2009 complainant handed over the mobile set to OP-2. The service job sheet issued by OP-2 is produced. Complainant is a practicing doctor and has given his mobile number to his patients to contact him as and when necessary and on emergency. Since mobile was not working properly patients are not able to contact him for emergency aid. Under the circumstances complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence he was advised to file this complaint and sought for the necessary reliefs. <br /> <br /> 4. After registering of the complaint notices were sent to OP-1 and 2. Inspite of service of notice OP-1 and 2 remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence OP-1 and 2 are placed ex-parte. Later on complainant got impleaded OP-3 who is a manufacturer of the mobile set and amended the complaint. Though OP-3 appeared through his advocate failed to file version or affidavit inspite of giving sufficient opportunity. Hence taken as version not filed. <br /> <br /> 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced invoice dated 16.02.2009, service job sheet, 30.04.2009, 29.07.2009, copy of the legal notice, reply of OP-2 and postal acknowledgement. OP-1 and 2 did not participate in the proceedings. OP-3 though appeared through his advocate failed to file version or affidavit. Hence taken as version not filed.<br /> <br /> 6. It is contended by the complainant that he being a practicing doctor for the purpose of communication he purchased a new Nokia mobile set Model No.5800 bearing IMEI No.354182026431989 for a sum of Rs.18,900/- from OP-1 dealer on 16.02.2009. To substantiate this fact complainant has produced invoice issued by OP-1. After 2 months when the said mobile set is not working properly complainant approached the OP-1 narrating the problems. The OP-1 advised the complainant to approach OP-2, the service centre to get it repaired. As per the advise of OP-1 complainant handed over the mobile set to OP-2 on 13.04.2009. After repair OP-2 returned the set to the complainant. Complainant used the set for a couple of days but the same problems persisted. Again complainant handed over mobile set to OP-2, requesting to change the handset or to return the amount. Though OPs accepted for the same; after few days refused to give new handset or to return the amount for one or other reason. Hence complainant caused legal notice on 12.06.2009 demanding to change the handset immediately or to return the amount with interest at 24% p.a. OP gave the reply stating that the mobile set was repaired and ready to dispatch asking the complainant to collect the same. Complainant collected the mobile set from OP-2 and used for few days. Again the same previous problems continued. Hence complainant handed over the mobile to OP-2 on 29.07.2009. The service job sheet issued by OP-2 is produced. The service job sheets issued by OP-2 substantiate the alleged defects in the mobile set. <br /> <br /> 7. We have perused the complaint averments, unchallenged affidavit evidence filed by the complainant. The documents filed by the complainant corroborates the case of the complainant. From the above discussions it is clear that the Nokia mobile set sold by OP-1 is suffering from the manufacturing defects. Inpsite of repairing it twice by OP-2, the defects could not be cured. Hence it is clear that the said mobile set is defective one. From the absence of the OPs and their version we can draw inference that OPs admits the allegations made by the complainant in toto. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. We are satisfied that OPs failed to repair the mobile set to the satisfaction of the complainant for the 2nd time or to refund the amount to the complainant within the period of warranty. This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Under these circumstances we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled for refund of the cost of the mobile set along with litigation cost. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP-1 and 3 are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.18,900/- being the cost of the mobile set along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. Failing which complainant is entitled to claim interest at 12% p.a. on the said amount from March – 09 till the date of realization. OP-2 is directed to handover the mobile set to OP-1.<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 14th day of May 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> s.n.m. <br />