Nokia Care V/S Suresha G.A - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/09/1488

Suresha G.A - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nokia Care - Opp.Party(s)

22 Aug 2009

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/1488

Suresha G.A						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Nokia Care						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED:26.06.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 22nd AUGUST 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.1488/2009 COMPLAINANT Sri. Suresha. G.A., No.931, 1st Floor, Tungabhadra River Road, 9th Main Road, Pipeline, Srinagar, Bangalore 560 050. Advocate Sri V.Sathish V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Nokia Care, No.25/1, Srikanta Mahal, 1st Floor, 1st Cross, Sampige Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore 560 003. O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.80,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. 2. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: 3. Complainant purchased Nokia N-70 mobile handset for Rs.9,598/- on 05.07.2008 and with a span of 9 to 10 months within warranty period, he experienced some inherent manufacturing defect in the said set. He got the hearing problem. Then immediately approached the OP, the authorized center for Nokia product to repair the same, but OP demanded Rs.300/- as repair charges and cost of the spares. As the said defect was noticed within warranty period complainant is not liable to pay the said cost. The repeated request and demands made by the complainant to OP to rectify the defect found in the set went in vain. Hence, he felt deficiency in service. For no fault of his he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and prayed for the relief accordingly. 4. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the said set suffered a liquid damage which is not covered under the warranty. In order to keep the good repute OP was ready and willing to repair the same, subject to complainant bearing the repair charges and cost of the spares. Complainant has not shown the interest and took away the set arbitrarily. Hence no fault lies with the OP. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The demand made by the OP is just and proper. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No.1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No.2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No.3 :- To what Order? 7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- Negative. Point No.2:- Negative. Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 8. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased one Nokia N-70 mobile set for total cost of Rs.9,598/- on 05.07.2008. As admitted by the complainant he used the mobile till May-2009 that is nearly for 10 months without any defect in the said set. After expiry of 10 months he noticed the problem with a hearing that to at the fag end of the warranty period. He took the said set for the repairs to the OP authorized center for Nokia product in the month of May-2009. 9. According to the complainant, OP after examining the said set informed him to pay Rs.300/- towards the repairs and cost of the spares as the said defect is not covered under warranty. He is not obliged to pay the said cost. When he refused to pay the same OP refused to repair the said set, hence he took it back on 08.06.2009. Documents to that effect are produced. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service against the OP. 10. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that on the examination of the said set they noticed, a liquid damage and that damage is not covered under the warranty. In order to keep up a good reputation and relationship with the customer they are still ready to repair the handset if the complainant bears the repair charges and cost of the spares. But complainant took back the said set after refusing to bear the said cost. Hence no fault lies with them us. 11. We find there is some justification in the defence set out by the OP. The complainant has extensively used the said set for more than 10 months from the date of purchase without any problem itself speaks to the fact, that there is no inherent manufacturing mechanical defect with the said set. We have gone through the warranty condition which reads as follows: 6. This Limited Warranty does not apply if the Product has been exposed to moisture, to dampness or to extreme thermal or environmental conditions or to rapid changes in such conditions, to corrosion, to oxidation, to spillage of food or liquid or to influence from chemical products. 12. We have gone through the said condition, we are satisfied that OP has got a right to invoke the said terms. But still remedy is still open to the complainant to redress his grievance. If he is really interested in the repairs of his set as OP detected the defect and ready to cure the same he can opt for that when such an equally efficacious relief is readily available to the complainant, in our view he cannot allege the deficiency in service. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case we find complaint is devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Hence complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 22nd day of August 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT s.n.m.

COMPLAINT FILED:26.06.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 22nd AUGUST 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.1488/2009 COMPLAINANT Sri. Suresha. G.A., No.931, 1st Floor, Tungabhadra River Road, 9th Main Road, Pipeline, Srinagar, Bangalore 560 050. Advocate Sri V.Sathish V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Nokia Care, No.25/1, Srikanta Mahal, 1st Floor, 1st Cross, Sampige Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore 560 003. O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.80,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. 2. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: 3. Complainant purchased Nokia N-70 mobile handset for Rs.9,598/- on 05.07.2008 and with a span of 9 to 10 months within warranty period, he experienced some inherent manufacturing defect in the said set. He got the hearing problem. Then immediately approached the OP, the authorized center for Nokia product to repair the same, but OP demanded Rs.300/- as repair charges and cost of the spares. As the said defect was noticed within warranty period complainant is not liable to pay the said cost. The repeated request and demands made by the complainant to OP to rectify the defect found in the set went in vain. Hence, he felt deficiency in service. For no fault of his he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and prayed for the relief accordingly. 4. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the said set suffered a liquid damage which is not covered under the warranty. In order to keep the good repute OP was ready and willing to repair the same, subject to complainant bearing the repair charges and cost of the spares. Complainant has not shown the interest and took away the set arbitrarily. Hence no fault lies with the OP. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The demand made by the OP is just and proper. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No.1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No.2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No.3 :- To what Order? 7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- Negative. Point No.2:- Negative. Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 8. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased one Nokia N-70 mobile set for total cost of Rs.9,598/- on 05.07.2008. As admitted by the complainant he used the mobile till May-2009 that is nearly for 10 months without any defect in the said set. After expiry of 10 months he noticed the problem with a hearing that to at the fag end of the warranty period. He took the said set for the repairs to the OP authorized center for Nokia product in the month of May-2009. 9. According to the complainant, OP after examining the said set informed him to pay Rs.300/- towards the repairs and cost of the spares as the said defect is not covered under warranty. He is not obliged to pay the said cost. When he refused to pay the same OP refused to repair the said set, hence he took it back on 08.06.2009. Documents to that effect are produced. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service against the OP. 10. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that on the examination of the said set they noticed, a liquid damage and that damage is not covered under the warranty. In order to keep up a good reputation and relationship with the customer they are still ready to repair the handset if the complainant bears the repair charges and cost of the spares. But complainant took back the said set after refusing to bear the said cost. Hence no fault lies with them us. 11. We find there is some justification in the defence set out by the OP. The complainant has extensively used the said set for more than 10 months from the date of purchase without any problem itself speaks to the fact, that there is no inherent manufacturing mechanical defect with the said set. We have gone through the warranty condition which reads as follows: 6. This Limited Warranty does not apply if the Product has been exposed to moisture, to dampness or to extreme thermal or environmental conditions or to rapid changes in such conditions, to corrosion, to oxidation, to spillage of food or liquid or to influence from chemical products. 12. We have gone through the said condition, we are satisfied that OP has got a right to invoke the said terms. But still remedy is still open to the complainant to redress his grievance. If he is really interested in the repairs of his set as OP detected the defect and ready to cure the same he can opt for that when such an equally efficacious relief is readily available to the complainant, in our view he cannot allege the deficiency in service. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case we find complaint is devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Hence complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 22nd day of August 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT s.n.m.