Presented by Sri G.S.Pradhan, President . <br /> The present complaint pertains to deficiency in service under the Provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and its brief facts are as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant purchased a Nokia Mobile hand set 6280 Model bearing its number 358356002665374 for a sum of Rs. 13,800/-(Rupees thirteen thousand eight hundred)only vide bill No. 178 Dt. 02/01/2007 from the Opposite Party No.1(one), the authorized dealer of Nokia Mobile company. The Opposite Party No.1(one) also delivered a warranty card which is valid for a term of 12(twelve) months from the date of purchase. Being a bonafide purchaser, the Complainant is a consumer of Opposite Parties.<br /> The Complainant contends that some days after its use, the said Mobile hand set did not work properly and became out of order. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1(one) for repair, who in turn submitted the handset to its Service Centre at Sambalpur, the Opposite Party No.2(two). The Opposite Party No.2(two) repaired it and returned the handset with job sheet Dt. 25/09/2007. Again after some days of its use the same defect started in the handset. The Complainant submitted the set to the Opposite Party No.2(two) for repair and after checking the handset, the Opposite Party No.2(two) found a major manufacturing defect and expressed his enability to repair the same and exchanged a second hand set in place of that defective one and issued a second Job sheet Dt. 06/12/2007 infavour of the Complainant. Again on Dt. 21/01/2008, the second replaced mobile also became out of order. The Complainant made complaint before the Opposite Party No.1(one) and approached Opposite Party No.2(two) for repair who after verifying it returned the same to the Complainant along with a Job card Dt. 21/01/2008.<br /> <br /> The Complainant contends that, on approach to the Opposite Party No.1(one) regarding the problem of the said defective handset, the Opposite Party No.1(one) assured to give him a new hand set with same term and condition after consulting the Nokia Corporation.<br /> <br /> In spite of several request to the Opposite Parties either to replace or repair the defective handset the Opposite Parties put a deaf ear and did not replace or repair the set till date for which the very purpose for purchases of Mobile Phone is in dream.<br /> <br /> Hence the Complainant filed this case against the Opposite Parties for their negligence and deficiency in service towards the Complainant claiming Rs. 13,800/-(Rupees thirteen thousand eight hundred)only for the purchase amount of the Nokia handset with 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum with compensation of Rs. 35,000/-(Rupees thirty five thousand)only for harassment and mental agony.<br /> <br /> On being noticed the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.3(three) appeared and filed their respective version through their counsel. Opposite Party No.2(two) set ex-parte for his non-appearance though notice was sufficiently served on him.<br /> <br /> In its version the Opposite Party No.1(one) contends that, he has not sold the Nokia Phone set to the Complainant under the alleged case memo No. 178 Dt.02/01/2007 and taken a complete denial plea stating the proprietor of M/s Neha Medical Store, Sohela has no relationship with M/s Niki Natasha of Sohela. Neither he is a dealer of Nokia Mobile nor he sells Mobile phones in his Medical Stores. The Opposite Party No.1(one) has taken a complete denial plea as contends in the complaint petition. Further the Opposite Party No.1(one), denied to have caused any deficiency in service towards the Complainant as such, the Complainant is neither entitled to nor the Opposite Party No.1(one) is liable to give the claime amount.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) preys for rejection of the case with cost as against the Opposite Party No.1(one).<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.3(three) denies any and all allegations and or claims or submissions that are raised in the complaint.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.3(three) contends that, as per the Job Sheet provided by the Complainant, the handset was purchased by the Complainant in perfect condition as the said handset was used satisfactorily by the Complainant for a period of more than eight months before it was submitted with the Opposite Party No.2(two) on Dt. 25/09/2007. As such there was no any manufacturing defect in the handset. The alleged defect in the handset was also duly rectified by the Service Centre during the subsistence of the warranty.<br /> <br /> Further the Opposite Party No.3(three) contends that, the liability of this Opposite Party as importer of the handset in any manner does not arise and no defect arose in the manufacturing of the handset as the answering Opposite Party takes all reasonable care as they carry out proper quality control and testing before delivery into market.<br /> No cause of action has arisen to file this present complaint against Opposite Party No.3(three) as the Opposite Party No.3(three) has performed its obligation as per the terms and conditions of the warranty.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.3(three) prays for dismissal of the Complaint with exemplary costs.<br /> <br /> Perused the complaint petition, Opposite Parties's version as well as the copies of documents filed by the Parties and found as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant has filed the copies of purchase bill of mobile handset issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and copies of service job sheet Dt. 25/09/2007, Dt. 06/12/2007 and Dt. 21/01/2008 to prove his case.<br /> <br /> It is evident from the copy of bill NO. 178 Dt. 02/01/2007 issued by the proprietor of Neha Medical Stores, Sohella interlink the business of selling of Mobile handset in the name and style M/s Niki Natasha, Sohela. He is the dealer of Nokia Mobile handset and carry on business of Mobile phones in his Medical Hall. The Complainant has purchased the said handset from the Opposite Party No.1(one) after paying the full consideration money and thus he is a consumer under the Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> The service job card issued by the Opposite Party No.2(two) proves that, the hand set has got manufacturing defects which can not rectified by the Opposite Party No.2(two) and in alternative the Opposite Party No.2(two) exchanged a second hand mobile handset for his use. After use of some days, the replaced mobile again became out of order which was not repaired by the Opposite Party No.2(two) and return to the Complainant. Since the Nokia Mobile hand set has a manufacturing defect it could not be rectified by the Opposite Party No.2(Two).<br /> <br /> Being harassed and after running several times to the Opposite Parties, lastly the Complainant approached to Opposite Party No.1(one), the dealer, regarding the matter, who assured him to return a new handset with same term and condition after consulting the Nokia Corporation, but the Opposite Parties has neither repaired the defective handset nor gave a new handset to the Complainant till date.<br /> Hence, the very purpose of buying a Mobile hand set by the Complainant is in dream.<br /> <br /> The Complainant has purchased the Nokia Handset on Dt. 02/01/2007 and the defects occurred on Dt.25/09/2007, that is within the warranty period as per the warranty card issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one). Being a bonafide consumer under the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties are duty bound to give proper service in respect of the said defective mobile handset. But the Opposite Parties has committed a beach of warranty and negligence to provide proper service towards the Complainant.<br /> <br /> The Complainant has well established a case of deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant for which all the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Complainant.<br /> <br /> In the result Complaint allowed and ordered.<br /> The Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to pay Rs. 13,800/-(Rupees thirteen thousand eight hundred)only the cost of the Nokia Mobile handset and Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees three thousand)only compensation towards mental agony and litigation cost to the Complainant with in 30(thirty) days from the date of this Order failing which the total awarded amount will carry 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum till the date of payment.<br /> Complainant disposed of accordingly.<br />