Date of Filing:14.01.2008<br /> Date of Order:04.06.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 144 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> R.D. Srinivas,<br /> No.03, I Main, I Floor,<br /> New Timber-yard Layout,<br /> Byatarayanapura,<br /> Bamgalooru-560 026. Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. Nokia Care (Manufacturer)<br /> Opp: to Roti Ghar Hotel,<br /> Gandhibazar, Bangalooru.<br /> <br /> 2. Akshar’s Telecom (Dealer)<br /> No.16, East Circle Road,<br /> V.V. Puram, Bangalooru-560 004. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant to reimburse amount paid towards purchase of Nokia N-95 Mobile Handset with costs.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant has purchased the Nokia N-95 for a sum of Rs.24,500/- on 23/10/2007. The mobile sound clarity was not good and was very feeble while talking with the customers. Due to the said problem the complainant handed over the set twice to Nokia Care for repair, the result was same and nothing has been done for proper usage. Hence, the complainant requested the dealer for replacement of mobile handset, but they refused. Hence, the complaint.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party No.1 appeared through advocate and filed defence version. Opposite party No.2 has not filed defence version. Opposite party No.1 filed defence version stating that, it is only a service centre and not a manufacturer. The complainant has to file a complaint against manufacturer i.e., Nokia Company. The complaint does not disclose any legal right of the complainant. Due to lack of knowledge and not knowing the exact address of the manufacturer, as the complainant was only aware of the opposite party No.1’s address he has filed this complaint against the wrong party. The opposite party No.1 wrongly shown as the manufacturer does not have any liability on his head as he is not the manufacturer and the defect challenged in the complaint discloses on the fact that the complainant is alleging a manufacturing defect of the hearing speaker as its sound out put is very feeble. This defect if assumed to be existing in the phone is a manufacturing defect and the service center should not be held responsible for such cases. The complainant has filed this complaint against the wrong party and has no water in the eye of law. The complaint filed by the complainant is baseless and untenable as he is a mis-joinder of party to the complaint. In View of all these reasons stated above, the opposite party No.1 prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of complainant filed. Opposite parties not filed affidavit evidence. Arguments heard. <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:- <br /> 1. Whether there was any deficiency in service <br /> on the part of the opposite parties? <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of the price amount of mobile set? <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. The case of the complainant is that, he had purchased mobile handset on 23/10/2007 from the opposite party No.2 dealer for Rs. 24,500/- He has produced receipt to that effect. After purchase he found that the mobile set was defective, sound was not clear. He handed over the set twice to Nokia Care for repairs. Even after that, the result was same. Mobile was not set right and defect was not removed and it is the case of the complainant that nothing has been done for the proper use of the mobile. He requested the opposite parties to replace the mobile handset, but they refused to do so. Therefore, the complainant was forced to file complaint. The complainant has filed affidavit evidence in support of his case. Though opposite party No.1 has filed defence version, but he has failed to file affidavit in support of his defence version. Opposite party No.2 has not filed defence version and also affidavit evidence. Opportunity was given to opposite parties to file affidavit evidence on payment of Rs.200/- on 24/4/2008 and the opposite parties have not filed affidavit evidence and also cost not paid. The affidavit evidence filed by the complainant has gone unchallenged. There is no contrary evidence, behalf of the opposite parties. Therefore, the case put up by the complainant has to be accepted as true and correct. Since the mobile purchased by the complainant is defective, even though he had given set for repairs twice thereafter also the defect was not removed and the handset is giving same trouble. The complainant was present in person requested for refund of the amount. He submitted that he does not want replacement of the mobile set. So, in view of this facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite parties shall be directed to refund the amount of Rs.24,500/-(price amount) to the complainant. The complainant has to hand over the mobile handset to the opposite parties after receiving the amount. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.24,500/- to the complainant (price amount of the mobile). The complainant is directed to hand over the mobile set to the opposite parties on receipt of the amount. The opposite parties are directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2008.<br /> <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />