DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 240 of 20-08-2007<br /> Decided on : 13-11-2007<br /> <br /> Aman Singla S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Singla, R/o H. No. 4645, Subhash Park Street, Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1. Nokia India Ltd., Raddison Hotel, Commercial Palaza, N.H. Mahipalpur, New Delhi 110 037.<br /> 2. New Vishal Electronics Repair Centre, SSD Temple Complex, 2/1, AT/C, Near Santoshi Mata Mandir, Bathinda.<br /> 3. Neuron Technologies, Near Old Bus Stand, Opp. Hanuman Chowk, GT Road, Bathinda, through its Prop/Parnter. <br /> <br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Lalit Garg, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Opposite party No. 1 exparte.<br /> Sh. Naresh Garg. Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 2.<br /> Sh. G S Bhasin, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 3. <br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to get his mobile hand set repaired free of cost; pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony, harassment and Rs. 3300/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 1. Version of the complainant as emanates from the complaint culminating into its filing may be epitomized as under :-<br /> 2. On the basis of the tall claims made by opposite party No. 2 regarding mobile hand set make Nokia model 6100, complainant purchased this set from opposite party No. 3 for a sum of Rs. 5425/- vide Invoice No. 780 dated 4.11.05. Warranty of one year was provided on the set by opposite party No. 2. IMEI No. of the set was 353399003642385. During the month of April, 2006 this hand set started switching of automatically. At the asking of opposite party No. 2 set was taken by the complainant to opposite party No. 3. It was kept by it vide Job Sheet dated 21.4.06. Opposite parties started demanding Rs. 2500/- for repair of the set although it was within the period of warranty. Complaint under section 12 of the Act was preferred by the complainant on 17.7.06 which was accepted by this Forum on 25.9.06 directing the opposite parties to repair it free of cost and make it functional. Warranty period was extended upto 30.4.07. Opposite parties were directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation. Order was not complied with. Complainant had filed application under Section 27 of the Act. It was dismissed as fully satisfied on 15.1.07 as opposite parties had repaired the set free of cost and had made payment of compensation. They had agreed to extend the period of warranty upto 30.8.07. Again this set became defective. Its power was not switching on. It was taken to opposite party No. 3 for repairs. Set was retained by opposite party No. 3 vide Job Sheet dated 18.7.07. Thereafter officials of opposite party No. 3 intimated him (complainant) that set was out of warranty and beyond economical repairs. He was asked to pay Rs. 3,000/-. Complainant apprised them that set was within the warranty upto 30.8.07 in view of the order dated 15.1.07 passed by this Forum but opposite party No. 3 paid deaf ears to it. He alleges that he has undergone mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment at the hands of the opposite parties as set is not being repaired and is in the custody of opposite party No. 3.<br /> 3. At one stage Sh. G.S. Bhasin appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 1. On 3.10.07, he pleaded no instruction to appear on its behalf. Accordingly it has been proceeded exparte.<br /> 4. Opposite party No. 2 filed reply taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present Form; complainant has not come with clean hands; complaint is false and vexatious; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complainant is not consumer and complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. It is further added by it that Complaint No.126 of 2006 filed by the complainant was decided by this Forum on 25.9.06. Complainant had filed complaint under Section 27 of the Act which was decided on 15.1.07. Warranty of the set was extended by opposite parties No. 1 & 3. It (opposite party No. 2) has no concern with the extended warranty which was extended on 15.1.07 on the basis of the statement of the counsel on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 3. It admits that hand set was sold with one year warranty on 4.11.05. Complainant had approached the service centre of Nokia India Limited on 18.7.07 i.e. after one year and five months from the date of its purchase. Opposite party No. 3 is working directly under opposite party No. 1. It denies the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 5. Opposite party No. 3 filed separate reply taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form as the hand set in question is out of limited warranty provided by opposite party No. 1 as the PCB has been found damaged. Hand set was previously repaired under the order of this Forum. Full compliance of the order passed by this Forum was done. Hand set was received by it on 18.7.07 vide job sheet No. 068343506/070718/26 with the reported fault of Does not Switch on. After examination by the expert engineer PCB of the set was found damaged which is out of limited warranty and beyond economical repairs. Hence, estimate of the set was given as Rs. 3,000/-. None of the opposite parties warranted PCB damage which is caused only when the hand set falls down on the earth intentionally or accidentally. Hence the fault of the customer cannot be covered under the warranty or guarantee. On hearing the repair charges, complainant lost his temper and threatened that his brother in law is a lawyer and he would take them to the court and take a new hand set.<br /> 6. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of order dated 25.9.06 (Ex. C-2), photocopy of order dated 15.1.07 (Ex. C-3) and photocopy of Service Job Sheet (Ex. C-4).<br /> 7. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite party No. 2 affidavit of Sh. Raj Kumar, Proprietor (Ex. R-3), on behalf of opposite party No. 3 affidavit of Sh. Swadesh Goyal, Proprietor (Ex. R-1) and photocopy of Limited warranty (Ex. R-2) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 9. Some are the undisputed facts. They are that previously complainant had filed Complaint No. 186 of 17.7.06 against the opposite parties. It was accepted on 25.9.06. Copy of the order is Ex. C-2. He had filed application on 15.1.07 under Section 27 of the Act alleging non-compliance of the order dated 25.9.06. Learned counsel for the complainant had made statement that mobile hand set has been repaired free of cost and has been made functional. Application under Section 27 was got dismissed as fully satisfied. Opposite parties No. 1 & 3 through their counsel had extended the period of warranty of the mobile hand set upto 30.8.07.<br /> 10. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that mobile hand set had gone out of order and it was deposited with opposite party No. 3 vide Job Sheet dated 18.7.07, copy of which is Ex. C-4. Despite the fact that mobile hand set was still under warranty on that day, it has not been repaired and returned. To the contrary, opposite party No. 3 asked the complainant to pay Rs. 3,000/- as repair charges . Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 11. Mr. Bhasin, learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 vehementally argued that warranty of the mobile hand set has come to an end as its PCB (Body) has been damaged. Such a defect occurs due to fall of the hand set on the earth intentionally or accidentally and it takes the hand set out of warranty. Complainant could get the hand set repaired against payment of Rs. 3,000/-. Since he did not pay the amount and has refused to take the delivery of the hand set, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1 & 3.<br /> 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments.<br /> 13. Onus to prove the version in the complaint is upon the complainant. He is required to establish his version by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. In our view, evidence to this effect is lacking. His affidavit that hand set was within the period of warranty on 18.7.07 and it has not been repaired by opposite party No. 3 free of cost stands amply rebutted/bracketed with the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Swadesh Goyal. Complainant could get the hand set produced from opposite party No. 3 and examine expert to the effect that PCB of the hand set is not damaged. He has not mustered courage to do so. Contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that terms and conditions of the limited warranty copy of which has been placed on record by opposite party No. 3 as Ex. R-2 are not applicable to the complainant, is not tenable. Complainant himself admits the warranty of the hand set upto 30.8.07. In case these terms and conditions are not applicable to the case of the complainant, complainant could place and prove on record other terms and conditions of warranty which according to him are allegedly applicable in his case. In Ex. R-1 Sh. Swadesh Goyal has made it clear that on examination of the hand set by expert on 18.7.07 and by him, PCB was found damaged. Hence, hand set is out of warranty and beyond economical repairs. Estimate of the set given to him was Rs. 3,000/- upon which complainant had lost his temper. In the Job Sheet as well observations have been made that set is out of warranty and beyond economical repairs and estimate of the PCB is Rs. 3,000/-. Complainant is relying upon Ex. C-4. On its back it has been made clear that The Nokia Care (Neuron Technologies) Bathinda shall provide warranty services on Nokia products as per the Nokia limited warranty terms and conditions only. Accordingly copy of the terms and conditions of warranty of Nokia Limited is Ex. R-2. Limited warranty does not cover defects caused by rough handling (including without limitation defects caused by sharp items, by bending, compressing or dropping etc.). It is not the case of the complainant that PCB of the hand set has been damaged after it was handed over to opposite party No. 3. Such damage is not due to normal wear and tear. Rather as per Ex. R-1 it is on account of fall on earth intentionally or accidentally. Hence the version of opposite party No. 3 that set is beyond warranty is acceptable and opposite parties No 1 & 3 are not liable to repair it free of cost. Complainant is not agreeing to pay the repair charges of Rs. 3,000/-. Accordingly, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is established. Complainant is at liberty to get it repaired against payment or can take it back unrepaired.<br /> 14. In view of our foregoing discussion complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> 15.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 13-11-2007 <br /> (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br />