CC Filed on 12.05.2009<br /> Disposed on 11.11.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 11th day of November 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 38/2009<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Ranjeeth @ Rajani,<br /> S/o. M.C. Narayana Reddy,<br /> Aged about 25 years,<br /> R/o. Manigatta Village,<br /> S.B. Halli Post,<br /> Kolar Taluk & District.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. V. Sridhar & others) <br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. M/s. Durga Mobile World,<br /> Near Jain Temple,<br /> Kilaripet Cross, <br /> Ammavaripet,<br /> Kolar – 563 101.<br /> Represented by its Propietor.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. M/s. Nokia Care Centre,<br /> Diamond Communication,<br /> Near KSRTC Bus Stand,<br /> Above Ruchi Sagar Hotel,<br /> Kittur Rani Chennamma Circle,<br /> Kolar – 563 101.<br /> Represented by its Proprietor.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. T.R. Jayaram) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> 3. M/s. HCL Infosystems Ltd.,<br /> # 100, Bharath Complex,<br /> Opp. to ICICI Bank,<br /> Infantry Road,<br /> Bangalore. <br /> Represented by its Proprietor.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.8,000/- with costs and interest and for Rs.5,000/- for mental agony etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts required for the disposal of this case may be stated as follows:<br /> That the complainant purchased for Rs.8,000/- a Nokia Mobile Model No. 6233 and set No. 356283018169427 on 15.12.2007 from OP.1, who was the dealer in it. It is alleged that after some time the said mobile set was not working and it was handed over to OP.2 who was authorized service centre. It is alleged that OP.2 in consultation with OP.3 who is manufacturer of Nokia mobile set, found that the mobile set purchased by complainant was beyond repairs and thereby complainant was replaced with a different similar mobile set. The complainant has alleged that within few days the replaced mobile set was also found not working and it was given to OP.2 for repairs and OP.2 in turn sent it to OP.3 to find out the defect. Further that this second mobile set was also found beyond repairs and accordingly the complainant was given a third mobile set. Further he alleged within short time the third mobile set was also not found working and when it was given for repairs to OP.2 it was not at all returned to him and no reply was given to him even after long time. <br /> <br /> 3. OP.1 contended that he was only a dealer for selling the mobile sets for small margin and he had told the complainant that the liability if any for repair and replacement was of the manufacturer. OP.2 contended that whenever any mobile set is received for repair he effects repairs if it is within his reach and he would send it to OP.3 if the defect cannot be traced by him and he would act as per the instructions of OP.3. Further OP.2 stated that in the present case the third mobile set was sent to OP.3 as it was not within his reach for repairs and OP.3 in turn did not return it or replaced any other set. <br /> <br /> 4. OP.3 the manufacturer of mobile set remained absent and it is placed ex-parte. <br /> <br /> 5. The complainant filed affidavit and supporting documents. OP.1 and 2 have not filed affidavits, but they filed their versions. <br /> <br /> 6. From the records it cannot be disputed that OP.1 is the dealer and OP.2 is only a service centre. It is also found from the versions of OP.1 and 2 that the third mobile set handed over to OP.3 to find out the defect was not returned. In view of the above facts it is clear that the deficiency in service is by OP.3, but not by OP.1 or OP.2, in not returning to complainant the mobile set handed over for repairs. <br /> <br /> 7. The Learned Counsel for complainant admitted that the mobile set purchased by complainant was covered with warranty for one year and the complainant had used it nearly for 10-11 months without any defects. In the above facts and circumstances we think a sum of Rs.6,000/- may be awarded as compensation to complainant apart from costs of this proceedings. Hence we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. OP.3 shall pay compensation of Rs.6,000/- to complainant, within 40 days from the date of this order. In default OP.3 shall pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on Rs.6,000/- from the date of default till realization. The complaint against OP No.1 and 2 is dismissed.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 11th day of November 2009.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />