COMPLAINT FILED: 14.12.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 30.03.2010 <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 30TH MARCH 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2954/2009<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Subramanya Swamy N<br /> No-11, 1st Cross, 6th block, <br /> 3rd phase, Banashankari, <br /> 3rd Stage, Bangalore – 560 085.<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1M/s.Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> 1st & 2nd Floor, Tower A,<br /> SP Infocity, Plot No.243,<br /> Udyogvihar Phase 1,<br /> Gurgon, Haryana-122 016.<br /> <br /> 2. Planet M,<br /> No-1370, Vaishnavi Plaza,<br /> Southend Road, <br /> Jayanagar 9th Block,<br /> Bangalore – 560 069.<br /> <br /> 3. Nokia Care Center,<br /> S V Mobiles, No-24, GM Plaza,<br /> 100ft Ring Road,<br /> Banashankari 3rd Stage<br /> Bangalore-560085.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER <br /> <br /> The complainant filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, seeking direction against Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P.) to replace the defective Nokia Mobile with a brand new Nokia-1203 Mobile hand set or refund the amount with compensation of Rs.1,000/- and costs on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. On 15-11-2009 complainant purchased Mobile hand set made of Nokia-1203 having EMI No.358012033-859755 from the OP-2 who is a dealer of Nokia Model Mobile sets for a sum of Rs.1,287/-. Complainant gifted the said mobile to his father as he has lost his mobile. The said mobile was not functioning properly from the day of purchase. It was defective in poor outgoing audio quality. Complainant’s father went to Trichy to attend marriage from 16-11-2009 to 24-11-2009. From the said mobile the person at the other end was unable to hear anything spoken by the user. On his return to Bangalore, complainant called Nokia helpline for assistance. Complainant was informed to take it to the nearest Nokia Care Centre. On 25-11-2009 complainant went to Nokia Care Centre i.e., OP-3 who is a authorized service centre and sought for replacement. OP-3 replied that it cannot replace but will repair the same as it is minor problem. Complainant returned on 26-11-2009 to take back his mobile from OP-3, he found that same was not repaired stating it was not a minor problem. The invoice and service job card are produced by the complainant. Complainant requested to give the contacting number of higher officer of Nokia. OP-3 refused. Again complainant approached OP-2 from whom he has purchased the mobile but he did not get any positive response. Complainant’s father being an LIC Agent could not contact his clients due to the delay in resolving issue which resulted in loss of business and financial loss. Then complainant sent e-mail to Nokia seeking address for to send legal notice. Same was declined to furnish the same. Copy of the e-mail correspondences are produced. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service against the OP. Under the circumstances he was advised to file this complaint against the OP for the necessary reliefs.<br /> <br /> 3. On admission and registration of the complaint notice is sent to OP 1 to 3. For OP-1 advocate appeared but failed to file version or affidavit on behalf of OP. Hence taken as version not filed. For OP 2 & 3 though notice is duly served remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence OP 2 & 3 placed exparte. <br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced invoice, service job sheet, e-mail correspondences. OP-1 did not file version. Hence taken as not filed. Op 2 & 3 did not participate in the proceedings. Heard the arguments. <br /> <br /> 5. It is the case of the complainant that on 15-11-2009 he purchased a mobile hand set made of Nokia-1203 bearing EMI No.358012033-859755 from the OP-2 for a sum of Rs.1,287/-. Complainant gifted that mobile to his father as he has lost his mobile. The said mobile was defective from the date of purchase having poor outgoing audio quality. From 16-11-2009 to 24-11-2009 complainant’s father was in Trichy to attend some marriage. From the said mobile the person at the other end is unable to hear anything spoken by the user. Complainant contacted Nokia helpline. It was informed to approach nearest Nokia Care Centre. On 25-11-2009 complainant approached OP-3 Nokia Care Centre seeking replacement. OP-3 replied it cannot replace but will repair the same. On 25-11-2009 complainant approached OP-3 to take back his mobile but he found the same was not repaired stating it was not a minor problem. The Invoice and Job Card service sheets are produced by the complainant. OP-3 refused to give any contacting number of higher officer of Nokia. Again complainant approached OP-2 from whom he purchased the said mobile. OP-2 did not give any positive response. Complainant’s father being an LIC Agent, his clients could not contact him due to delay in resolving issue which resulted in loss of business and financial loss. Complainant sent e-mail to OP seeking address to send legal notice. OP declined to furnish the same. Copy of the e-mail correspondences are produced. OP-1 though appeared through Advocate, but failed to file version or affidavit inspite of giving sufficient opportunity. Hence taken as version not filed. Inspite of service of notice OP 2 & 3 remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. From the absence of OP’s we can draw the inference that OP 1 to 3 admits all the allegations made by the complainant. <br /> <br /> 6. During the period of warranty complainant is entitled for free service and replacement, after repeated request OP denied the service and replacement and forced the complainant to approach this Forum. This act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant’s father having purchased the mobile unable to contact his family members when he was out of station and his clients also unable to contact him resulting in loss of communication in business. The documents produced by the complainant supports the case of the complainant. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled for refund of the amount with compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. <br /> <br /> OP 1 to 3 are directed to refund Rs.1,287/- and take back the defective mobile hand set Nokia-1203 from the complainant and pay compensation of Rs.,1000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.<br /> <br /> Send this copy of the order to both the parties free of costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 30th day of March 2010) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. <br /> <br /> OP 1 to 3 are directed to refund Rs.1,287/- and take back the defective mobile hand set Nokia-1203 from the complainant and pay compensation of Rs.,1000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />