BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD                              :         PRESIDENT

SMT. SATHI. R                                  :         MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                           :         MEMBER

                                    C.C.No:  46/2013          filed on 01/02/2013

                                     Dated: 15..03..2014

Complainant:

N. Suresh, Pranavam, K.G.196, Kalpaka Gardens, Pappanamcode – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 018.

                      (Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. Nokia Authorised Service Centre, Bright Mobile Care, Vijaya Tower, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram.

         (By Adv. Tharif)

2. QRS, Thilagaraj, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram.

         (By Adv. K. Murlidharan Nair)

This O.P having been heard on 06..03..2014, the Forum on 15..03..2014 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR, MEMBER:

         Complainant herein purchased a mobile hand set Nokia N-500 by paying Rs.9850/- from the 2^nd opposite party. The purchase was done on 04/11/2012. On 22/11/12 he gave the phone to the 1^st opposite party for curing the complaint, diming of light, on the screen. They accept the phone for repairs. But after one and a half month, 1^st opposite party informed him that the printed circuit board of the phone got damaged and for repairing the same Rs. 6000/- is to be paid by the complainant. Aggrieved by the action of the opposite party on warranty period, complainant approached this Forum to get his complaint redressed.

         2. On being served opposite parties entered appearance. Though a Vakkalath is seen filed by the 1^st opposite party, no version has been filed by them even after giving ample opportunies. So we proceeded exparte against them. 2^nd opposite party filed version and their contentions are as follows: The complainant had on 04/08/2012 vide invoice No.9-187847 purchased a mobile phone of Nokia make model No.N500. The complainant, after being satisfied with the specification and price, had selected the product of the 1^st opposite party. It is submitted that the complainant was satisfied with the working condition of the said product and had purchased the same. 2^nd opposite party is only a dealer and does not undertake any repairing / servicing of the products. The complainant had approached the authorised service centre of Nokia on 13/12/2012. The service centre on inspection of the phone had found that the phone had been tampered with C2451 Component Pad was torn off with part missing. There was scratch and bend on cover. Under these circumstances, the guarantee becomes void. 2^nd opposite party is not aware as to what happened between the service centre and the complainant. The complainant has no cause of action for instituting this complaint against 2^nd opposite party. No specific allegation of unfair trade practice is alleged against 2^nd opposite party.

         3. Points raised for consideration are:

         (i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

         (ii) Reliefs and costs, if any?

         Complainant filed affidavit along with 2 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 & P2. 2^nd opposite party also filed affidavit.

         4. Points 1 & 2: Case of the complainant is that he was asked to pay for repair which arise in the warranty period of his mobile phone. The phone is now in the custody of the 1^st opposite party. It has been there for more than a year. The alleged defect occurred only after 3 months of its purchase. For curing the same, opposite party claimed Rs.6,000/-. The cost of the mobile phone is Rs. 9850/- only. So for rectifying a defect within 3 months of its purchase by giving such an amount seems unfair. That is within the warranty period. 2^nd opposite party is the dealer of the mobile phone in dispute. They don’t have a role in this dispute apart from being the dealer. Now the mobile set is with the 1^st opposite party and they are still holding it. So 1^st opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. Since the defective set is with the 1^st opposite party and they are not contesting the matter, we are not in a position to find out a clear picture of the defect in the mobile. So adverse inference is drawn against the 1^st opposite party. In his affidavit complainant states that since he purchased another set for his daily use, he don’t want a replacement for the defective set. He claims refund. So we are allowing with the claim for refund.

         In the result, complaint is allowed. 1^st opposite party is direct to refund Rs.9850/- to the complainant within a month of receipt of this order. After this period, 9% interest is ordered till the date of realisation. Rs.1000/- is allowed as cost of the proceedings which is also to be given by the 1^st opposite party. 2^nd opposite party is exonerated from liability.      

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of March, 2014.

                                        Sd/- LIJU B. NAIR                   :         MEMBER      

           Sd/-G. SIVAPRASAD             :         PRESIDENT

Sd/-R. SATHI                            :         MEMBER

         Ad

C.C.No: 46/2013

APPENDIX

I.   Complainant’s witness          :         N I L

II. Complainant’s documents:

P1      :  Copy of service job sheet dated 22/11/2012 issued by 1^st opposite   party

P2      :  Copy of Retail Invoice No.9-187847 dated 04/08/2012 issued by 2^nd opposite party

III. Opposite parties’ witness               :         N I L

IV. Opposite parties’ documents          :         N I L

Ad                                                                                          sd/-   PRESIDENT