Date of Filing:18.10.2008<br /> Date of Order:19.02.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2249 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Dr. Mangalchand,<br /> S/o B. Thejraj, No.1152, III Main,<br /> 6th Cross, K.N. Extension, <br /> Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore. Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. M/s Concepts Inc.<br /> LG-3, “The Pavilion”,<br /> No.62 & 63, M.G. Road, <br /> Bangalore-01, represented by its<br /> Authorised Signatory.<br /> <br /> 2. Bright Caree,<br /> No.25/1, Srikanta Mahal,<br /> I Floor, I Cross, Sampige Road,<br /> Malleswaram, Bangalore-03. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant for replacement of Nokia handset or for payment of bill amount of Rs.29,800/-.<br /> The complainant has purchased Nokia handset for Rs.29,800/- on 10/02/2007 from opposite party No.1. He had given handset for repairs on 19/01/2008 as per job sheet to the opposite party No.2. Same was given back to the complainant stating that it has been repaired properly. Complainant submitted that once again instrument started giving problem. Again he once again gave the handset for repairs on 04/08/2008 as per job sheet. Opposite party No.2 has not returned or got repaired the handset. Hence, the complaint. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Notice was served. Opposite party No.1 remained absent and opposite party No.2 appeared in person and filed defense version stating that the customer intimated opposite party that he had purchased handset on 10/02/2007. The opposite party would not be able to provide warranty to the handset within the warranty period. Opposite party No.2 submitted that they will trying to repair the set if the customer agrees to pay the repair charges treating the handset as out of warranty. Therefore, the opposite party No.2 requested to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Arguments are heard.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 4. The complainant has produced invoice of opposite party No.1 which is dated 10/02/2007. The opposite party has produced first service job sheet of opposite party No.2. As per this service job sheet the handset was given to opposite party No.2 for repairs on 19/01/2008 that means nearly after 11 months of purchase. The opposite party No.2 has produced warranty terms and conditions of Nokia Company Limited. Warranty period starts at the time of original purchase by the first end user. 12 months for the mobile devise and accessories. Six months for batteries, chargers, desk stands, head sets etc., and 90 days for the media on which any software is provided i.e., CD Rom, Memory Card etc.,. Again it is stated in the warranty rule that, warranty period will not be extended or renewed or otherwise affect due to subsequent resale, repair or replacement of the product. However, repaired parts will be warranted for the remainder of the original warranty period or for 60 days from the date of repair whichever is longer. So as per this warranty, it is clear that for the mobile set the warranty period is 12 months. In this case, the set was purchased on 10/02/2007 and it was given to service on 19/01/2008. The set was replaced by the opposite party No.2 on 31/01/2008. The complainant has signed on the service job sheet that he has received brand set with new IMEI Number and he has used new set for more than 7 months. Again on 04/08/2008 he has given with new set to the job sheet for repairs and the set is with the opposite party No.2 at present. As per the opposite party warranty period is over. Therefore, he cannot repair the set with free of costs. Opposite party was present at the time of hearing and we directed him to take only 50% of the cost of the repairs as a good gesture towards the customers and we also directed him not to take a labour charge. For this suggestion the opposite party No.2 accepted and he is ready to repair the handset provided the complainant pays only 50% of the cost of the spare parts. Since the warranty period is over for the replacement of product, warranty period is 60 days from the date of repairs. The complainant had taken the replacement product on 31/01/2008 and he had again given that product to opposite party No.2 on 4th August-2008 that is after more than 60 days. Therefore, the only order could be passed is that, the opposite party shall repair the product by charging only 50% of the cost of repairs and opposite party has to forgo the labour charges. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 5. The Complaint is allowed. The opposite party No.2 is directed to repair the handset by collecting only 50% of the repair charges and the opposite party No.2 has to forgo the labour charges also. After the work is done the handset shall be handed over to the complainant. The complainant has to intimate his willingness to opposite party No.2 within 30 days from the date of this order. <br /> 6. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> Rhr.,<br />