Date of Filing:05.02.2010<br /> Date of Order: 02.06.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2010<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 /> COMPLAINT NO: 259 OF 2010 <br /> <br /> <br /> Mr. Sourav Chandra Sarkar,<br /> House No.901, Bethel House,<br /> 59th Cross, (Near Police Station)<br /> Kumaraswamy Layout,<br /> Bangalore-78. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1.Nokia Head office<br /> Industrial Plot No.1st & 2nd Floor,<br /> Tower A, SP Infocity, <br /> Udyog Vihar, Phase 1,<br /> Gurgaon, Haryana-122016<br /> <br /> 2.M/s. Magnum Fashions,<br /> No.15, 11th Main, 3rd Block,<br /> Jayanagar, Opp. Khazana Jewellers,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> 3.The Mobile Store Ltd.,<br /> Shop No.62, Ground Floor,<br /> AVAS Complex,<br /> 229/16, 9th Main, <br /> 3rd Block, Jayanagar,<br /> Bangalore. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant in person. The facts of the case are as under.<br /> The complainant bought Nokia N79 mobile Handset from The Mobile Store Ltd., Bangalore for Rs.19,869/-. The said mobile was defective, he had given same to the Nokia Care opposite party No.2 and he had given same for repairs several times. The complainant states that 8 times he had given for repairs, Nokia Care use to keep phone for 7-15 days. He had complained about this issue to the higher authority, but they did not take it seriously. Several times the phone was sent to Delhi for repairing. He had complained to the National Consumer Helpline, Delhi with complaint No.207718. He had sent a letter to Nokia Head office, Gurgaon, Haryana. After few days he received Nokia N79 from Nokia customer care opposite party No.2. The new phone was also defective. After getting the replacement the new phone started giving same problem. The screen of the phone used to blink. He went to Nokia Care they did not accept phone for repairing. He had posted his problem in the Blog of Nokia, but no reply received. Again he complained to the National Consumer Helpline and as per their instructions he had sent 2 letters. He was informed that some one from Nokia will contact him. But, till date no one will contact him. The complainant submitted that he was very much mentally tortured by the behavior of Nokia Authority. He had spent about Rs.8,000/-. The complainant had suffered lot in the last one year. Therefore, the complainant wants that the opposite parties be directed to refund the amount of Rs.19,869/- and also they may be directed to pay Rs.8,000/- spent by him towards transportation charges, call charges, postage charges etc. <br /> 2. After admitting the complaint the notice was issued to the opposite parties by RPAD. Notice of op No.1 not returned, opposite party No.2 appeared through Counsel, opposite party No.3 though served with notice not appeared before this Fora, therefore opposite party No.3 is placed ex-parte. The opposite party No.2 has failed to present defense version, even though sufficient opportunity was given. When the case was posted to 1-6-2010 the opposite party No.2 was not present and defense version not filed. The complainant filed his affidavit evidence. <br /> <br /> 3. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and arguments of complainant in person are heard. The matter is taken for orders. I have gone through complainant averments and the affidavit evidence and documents. The complainant has produced Tax Invoice dated 7/1/2009. He has produced several Service Job Sheets and he has produced correspondence made by him. <br /> 4. Points arise for consideration:-<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief? <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. The complainant had purchased Nokia N79 Mobile phone from opposite party No.3 The Mobile Store Ltd., for Rs.19,869/- on 7-1-2009, he has produced Tax Invoice. It is the case of the complainant that the said phone was defective piece. He had given same to the service center several times for repairs. Till filing the complaint he had given phone for 8 times to the service center. He has produced several service job sheets. In one of the service job sheet it is clearly mentioned 5th time service given and problems are not solved and the instrument had gone to Factory for repairs. The complainant had also complained to the Nokia higher authorities and he is also complained the issue to the National Consumer Helpline, Delhi. The opposite No.2 replaced the set and the said new phone also was defective piece and the complainant faced same problems with new phone. Again he went to Nokia Care but they did not accept the same for repairing. He had posted his problem in the Blog of Nokia but no one replied. He had sent letters also to the Nokia customer care, but no body contacted him as per the assurance. The complainant mentally suffered lot he had spent almost Rs.8,000/- for transportation call charges, postage charges etc. The complainant has produced copies of correspondence letters made with the opposite parties. The case put up by the complainant has gone unchallenged. The opposite party No.3 The Mobile Store Ltd., has not appeared before this Fora even though served with notice. The opposite party No.2 Service center though appeared through Counsel but defense version not filed. The opposite party No.1 is a head office of Nokia, the company situated at Guragon, Hryana State. Notice was sent through RPAD and no reply or defense version received from Nokia Head office, Guragon. It is very unfortunate and a very big International company failed in giving proper and satisfactory service to the customers. It is duty and obligation of the opposite parties to sell defect free product to the customers. The complainant suffered lot due to the manufacturing defect of the mobile set purchased by him from The Mobile Store Ltd. The dealer of the product is as much as responsible with the manufacturer of goods. The dealer can not escape from his responsibility in better way after selling the product no dealer is permitted in Law to sell defective product to the customers. Customer is an important visitor to the premises of service provider. Customer satisfaction is most important factor that should be taken care by the service providers and dealers. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala in a case reported CTJ March 2010 issue page 344, it has been held as under.<br /> “Dealer-Manufacturer-Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Both the Manufacturer and its dealer are the necessary parties to the sale of a product- In case of any manufacturing defect alleged to be in that product, the dealer can not evade its responsibility- It is as much liable to the purchaser as the manufacturer” <br /> <br /> So in view of the said judgment here in this case opposite party No.3 who is a dealer as much as responsible as manufacturer he has to refund the amount received from the complainant. It is up to the opposite party No.3 to get the reimbursement from the company. The complainant is nothing to do with that aspect. Since, the defective piece was sold by the opposite party No.3 it is his duty and obligation to give back the amount received from the complainant and get back the defective hand set. The Consumer Protection Act is a Social and Benevolent Legislation intended to protect the better interest of the consumers, the complainant here in being a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, his interest and rights are required to be protected in passing orders for payment of cost of the Mobile set. The opposite parties are jointly and severally responsible to refund the amount of Rs.19,869/- to the complainant. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.19,869/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order. In the event of non compliance of the order within 60 days the above amount carries interest at 10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment / realization. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 2nd DAY OF JUNE 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br />