COMPLAINT FILED: 29-05-2009 <br /> DISPOSED ON: 23-12-2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 23RD DECEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1232/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.K.Hanumantharayappa,<br /> S/o.Late.Karehanumaiah,<br /> Aged about 53 years,<br /> No.389, 8th Main, Viveknagar,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.M.V.Maruthi<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1)Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> 4-F tower, A7B, Cybergreen,<br /> DLF Cyber City, Scetor 225A,<br /> Gurgaon-122002<br /> Haryana, India<br /> <br /> 2)Univercell,<br /> P.B.No.1884, Ground Floor,<br /> K.G.Complex, K.G. Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 009.<br /> <br /> 3)The Manager,<br /> Authorised Nokia Service Centre<br /> Malleswaram<br /> Bangalore-560 003.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.G.S.Balagangadhar<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER <br /> <br /> This complaint is filed u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to pay compensation of Rs.24,330/- with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:<br /> <br /> 2. Complainant purchase a Nokia mobile handset bearing No.3610 blue with IMEL No.356785023181940 from OP-2 for a sum of Rs.7,330/-. OP-2 collected Rs.180/- insurance amount towards theft and damage. After 10 days of purchase instrument developed problems of hearing complainant could not hear the voice of the call maker even though the caller could hear the complainant. Immediately complainant approached OP-2 for replacement. OP-2 suggested the complainant to get the instrument serviced at authorized service centre, Malleshwaram and gave their telephone numbers. Complainant approached the OP-3 complaint No.3218 was lodged with OP-3. After two days OP-3, returned the mobile of the complainant stating it would take more than 15 days time to repair the same. Left with no option complainant brought back the instrument to OP-2 for replacement. OP-2 promised that it will take 10 days time to get the instrument serviced from head office. After 15 days OP-2 told complainant that without extra charge instrument cannot be serviced. Because of unnecessary delay complainant faced lot of inconvenience and purchased new mobile set incurring further expenditure. Complainant caused legal notice to OP-2 on 03-03-2009. There was no response to the notice. Hence, complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he was advised to file this complaint for the necessary reliefs. <br /> <br /> 3. On appearance Op-1 filed version mainly contending that complainant had misused the mobile set. So complainant himself responsible for the alleged default claiming benefit under warranty period is totally illegal and vexations. One year warranty period is not absolute, but subject to terms and conditions. Issuance of job sheet by authorized service centre cannot be an acknowledgement of the allegation of the complainant. Issuance of the job sheet to the complainant is the receipt for the preliminary investigation. No documents to substantiate the allegations are produced and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. Op-2 filed version mainly contending that OP-2 informed the complainant to approach Op-3, Nokia service centre, Malleshwaram, Bangalore. OP-3 informed OP-2 that handset has been handled by some unauthorized mechanic. The set cannot be replaced or repaired, since it has been handled by unauthorized mechanic there is a violation of warranty conditions. The set has been returned to complainant informing that extra charges are necessary for repair. Among other grounds prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 5. Op-3 appeared in person not filed version or affidavit. Hence taken as version not filed. <br /> <br /> 6. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OPs have also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 7. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OPs?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 8. 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:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 9. At the outset it is not at dispute that on 20-12-2008 complainant purchased Nokia mobile handset bearing No.3610 Blue with IMEI No.356785023181940 from OP-2 for a sum of Rs.7,330/-. The copy of the invoice dated 20-12-2008 is produced. After 10 days of purchase instrument developed problems of hearing. Further it is also not at dispute that complainant approached OP-2 for replacement. OP-2 suggested complainant to get the instrument serviced at OP-3, authorized service centre. Complainant lodged complaint No.3218 with the OP-3. After two days OP-3 returned the mobile of the complainant stating it require more than 15 days to repair it. Left with no option complainant took the instrument back to OP-2 for replacement, OP-2 after 15 days told complainant instrument cannot be serviced without extra charges. Because of this unnecessary delay complainant faced lot of inconvenience and purchased new mobile set incurring further expenditure. <br /> <br /> 10. As against this it is contended by the OP1 & 2 that the alleged handset has been mis-handled by an authorized person. This contention cannot be accepted because there is no supporting evidence produced by the OP 1 & 2.<br /> <br /> 11. It is contended by the complainant that within a period of warranty he is entitled for service at free of cost. Ops are not justified in demanding extra charges towards repairing of the instrument. Admittedly mobile set purchased on 20-12-2008 by the complainant, developed audio problems within 10 days of its purchase. The contention of the OP-1 that one year warranty period is not absolute but subject to terms and conditions, cannot be accepted because Ops failed to produce those terms and conditions. Since the instrument developed the problem within the period of warranty complainant is entitled for service at free of cost. <br /> <br /> 12. We hold that the extra charges demanded by the OPs towards repair / service charges of the instrument within the warranty period amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Now because of the delay on the part of the OPs complainant faced lot of inconvenience and was forced to purchase a new set. Inspite of service there was no response to legal notice. Under the circumstances we are of the considered view that in the interest of the justice OP is to be directed to refund the cost of that Nokia mobile handset being Rs.7,330/- and take back the defective mobile set from the complainant, along with cost of this proceedings. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed.<br /> <br /> OPs are directed to refund Rs.7,330/- being the cost of Nokia mobile handset and take back defective hand set from the complainant and pay an amount of Rs.500/- towards litigation cost within four weeks from the date of its communication failing which complainant is entitled to claim interest at 12% p.a. from 20-12-2008 till the date of payment. <br /> <br /> Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 23th day of December 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS*<br />