Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/282/2005

R.Latha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nokia Care Centre. - Opp.Party(s)

R.Karuppan

10 Aug 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   02.05.2005

                                                                        Date of Order :   10.08.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.282/2005

THURSDAY THIS  10^TH   DAY OF AUGUST 2017

 

Miss. R.Latha,

D/o. Ramasamy,

No.70, Kavignar Kannadasan Nagar,

Fifth Street, Ramapuram,

Chennai 600 089.                                               .. Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

1. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.,

Raddisson Hotel,

Commercial Plaza,

NH-8, Mahipalpur,

New Delhi – 37.

 

2. Nokia Care Centre,

HCL Infinet Limited,

Shop No.5, Arthi Chambers,

No.189, Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002.

 

3. Mobile King,

Shop No.22, Plaza Centre,

No.129, G.N.Chetty Street,

(Near Anna Fly Over),

Chennai 600 006.                                         .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Complainant              :    M/s. R. Karuppan & others

Counsel for opposite party-1        :    M/s.R. Syed Mustafa

Counsel for opposite parties 2 & 3:    Exparte.

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

         

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to return a sum of Rs.5300/- towards cost price of the mobile and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.2500/- towards cost of the complaint.  

 

 1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that she purchased a mobile phone Model No.2300 from the 3^rd opposite party for a sum of Rs.5300/-  plus sale tax of Rs.53/- on 8.5.2005.   The opposite party extended their warranty for 12 months.  Within two months from the date of purchase, the  said mobile phone developed its own defects and ended with lack of display.  The complainant was to take instrument to the 2^nd opposite party the authorized service centre.   The 2^nd opposite party failed to cure the defects in its products and did not come forward to deliver the instrument.    Accordingly the complainant sent legal notice to the opposite party on 30.12.2004 called upon the opposite parties to supply a fresh piece of Nokia 2300 model mobile phone or to repay the cost of the mobile phone  and  to pay compensation.    But the opposite parties have given an evasive reply.      As such the act of the opposite parties clearly amounts gross deficiency in service; mental agony and unfair trade practice to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

 

2. The brief averments in the Written Version of  the 1^st opposite party    are as follows:

        The 1^st opposite party denies each and every allegationa except those that are specifically admitted herein.  the 1^st opposite party submit that its limited warranty terms and conditions and that the complainant has been offered a new replacement in lieu of her Handset.  The complainant has availed the best possible services from the opposite parties.  It is submitted that an offer for replacement of a Nokia Handset Model 2300 has long been approved and is lying with the opposite party No.2 ready to be delivered to the complainant.      Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. Inspite of service of notice the opposite parties 2 & 3 are absent and set exparte.

4.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties  filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 marked on the side of the opposite parties.   

5.   The point for the consideration is:  

 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5300/- towards cost price of the mobile phone with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. towards the cost of the mobile phone purchased by her as pared for ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony for deficiency of service with cost of Rs.2,500/- as prayed for?

6.   POINTS 1 & 2:

        Both parties filed their respective proof affidavit along with  documents.  The complainant filed her written argument.   Both parties have not turned up to advance any oral arguments for long time.  Hence this forum treated that both parties have no oral arguments. The complainant pleaded and contended in the written arguments that she purchased a mobile phone Model No.2300 from the 3^rd opposite party for a sum of Rs.5300/-  + sale tax of Rs.53/- on 8.5.2005 as per Ex.A1.   The opposite party extended their warranty for 12 months in Ex.A1 itself; within two month of purchase the said mobile phone developed its own defects and ended with lack of display.   Hence the complainant was constrained to take  the instrument to  2^nd opposite party;  the authorized service centre.  Wherein the 2^nd opposite party serviced the instrument, which is also not functioned in a satisfactory manner.  Hence the complainant requested for replacement of a fresh mobile phone.  Ex.A2 is the job card showing the default in function of display take place during the period of warranty and it is due to technical problem arising out of mechanical defect.   

7.     The complainant further contended that the opposite party has not produced any document or handed over the mobile phone after duly checked by the qualified technician.  Hence the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice Ex.A3 the opposite party sent a reply stating that the mobile phone was duly serviced and it’s ready for delivery.  But till the date of filing of this case and even in the written version the mobile phone was not duly serviced by the qualified technician of opposite parties.  On the other hand in the  re-joinder as well as written version the opposite party admitted that they are ready to replace a brand new mobile phone of same model.  The contention raised by the opposite party in the written version and proof affidavit, that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.   Immediately after the receipt of mobile phone for service, the opposite party duly serviced the mobile phone;  but the complainant was not in a satisfactory manner to receive the same.  Thereafter the opposite party called the complainant and shown their willingness to replace by a brand new mobile phone.   But the complainant has not turned up to receive the brand new mobile phone also,  and filed this case claiming compensation of different kinds.   There is no iota of truth in claiming such compensation; since at the earliest point of time itself i.e. immediately after receipt of the advocate notice the opposite party extended their willingness for replacement by a  brand new mobile phone.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that  the  opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to replace the  defective complaint mentioned mobile phone with a brand new one in similar model  within one month to the complainant  and the points are answered accordingly.  

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.    The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to  replace the  defective complaint mentioned mobile phone  with a  brand new one in similar model  within one month from the date of this order (i.e.) 10.08.2017 to the complainant.   No cost.

 Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  10^th   day  of  August 2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1- 8.5.2004    - Copy of Invoice.

Ex.A2- 20.11.2004         - Copy of Service job sheet.

Ex.A3- 30.12.2004         - Copy of lawyer’s notice.

Ex.A4- 8.1.2005    - Copy of reply notice.

Ex.A5- 20.1.2005  - Copy of rejoinder.

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -  

Ex.B1- 16.9.2005  - Copy of version filed by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.B2- 8.1.2005    - Copy of reply notice.

Ex.B3- 10.3.2005  - Copy of reply notice.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.