BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
C.C. No. 407/2012 Filed on 17.11.2012
Dated : 29.06.2013
Complainant :
Justin Raj, S/o Daivaraj residing at “Jini Bhavan”, Malachittu, Parasuvakkal, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. D.R. Rajesh)
Opposite parties :
Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., S.P. Infocity, Industrial Plot # 243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-I, Dundahera, Gurgaon-122 016, Haryana.
M/s Mobily, N.N. Towers, T.C. No. 3/2774(2), Opp: Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.
Smart Care Nokia Service Centre, 3rd Floor, Menathottam Chambers, Near IOC Petrol Pump, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.
This O.P having been heard on 12.06.2013, the Forum on 29.06.2013 delivered the following:
ORDER
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
The grouse of the complainant is that complainant had purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the 1st opposite party Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, Haryana from the 2nd opposite party M/s Mobily, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram on 12.04.2011 for Rs. 9,400/-, that the said phone was having one year warranty from the date of its purchase, that the said phone developed trouble and non-functioning within 6 months of its purchase, that as directed by the 2nd opposite party, complainant had entrusted the said phone to the 3rd opposite party, the authorized service centre of the 1st opposite party on 17.10.2011, that the 3rd opposite party rectified the complaint and returned the hand set to the complainant, that within a period of one week, the said phone again developed non-functioning and the same complaint regarding the touch facility became faulty and the handset was again entrusted to the 3rd opposite party for repair and 3rd opposite party again repaired the same and returned it to the complainant and received Rs. 499/- from the complainant during the subsistence of additional one year warranty for the handset, that while so the touch function of the said handset again became defective and 3rd opposite party received the said handset from the complainant on 30.03.2012 and issued a job sheet, but 3rd opposite party had not returned the said handset to complainant after its repair even after repeated requests from the complainant, that thereafter complainant issued a lawyer's notice to 3rd opposite party for which there was no response from the 3rd opposite party. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to replace the defective mobile phone handset with a new fault free handset or to refund the price of the mobile handset with interest thereon along with compensation and cost.
Opposite parties, on being served, not entered appearance nor filed their versions and hence ordered to be proceeded exparte.
The points that arise for consideration are:-
Whether the mobile handset is having serious defects?
Whether the defects, if any, are repairable?
Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
Whether complainant is entitled to any reliefs prayed for?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P8.
Points (i) to (iv):- Complainant had purchased a mobile phone (Nokia handset touch screen phone) on 12.04.2011 for Rs. 9,400/- by Ext. P1. Ext. P1 is the copy of the bill/invoice dated 12.04.2011 issued by the opposite party. According to complainant the said handset was having warranty for a period of one year. It has been the case of the complainant that hardly six months after its purchase, the said phone became faulty, and its touch screening was not working and hence the same was entrusted with the 3rd opposite party service centre. Ext. P3 is the copy of the service job sheet dated 17.10.2011. As per Ext. P3 it is recorded that “Touch not working” and handset repaired and returned in warranty. Ext. P2 is the copy of the 'product and safety information'. According to complainant even after rectification of the said defects, within a period of one week the same problem repeated-the phone started non-functioning and touch facility became faulty, hence the handset was again entrusted to 3rd opposite party for repair and 3rd opposite party again repaired the same and returned it to him. It has been contended by the complainant that he has availed an additional one year warranty scheme for the mobile handset by Ext. P4 receipt. Ext. P5 is the copy of the Nokia Care protect certificate of coverage. Again the touch function of the said handset became defective and on 30.03.2012 3rd opposite party received the said handset from the complainant by Ext. P6 service job sheet. Though complainant approached the 3rd opposite party several times, he was informed that the spare parts are not available and it will take some time to get it repaired. It has been the very case of the complainant that till date 3rd opposite party had neither carried out any repair nor had they returned the handset to him and the handset is still in the custody of the 3rd opposite party. Since there was no response from 3rd opposite party, complainant was constrained to issue a lawyer's notice dated 18.05.2012 by Ext. P7 calling upon the 3rd opposite party to repay the price of the mobile handset or to give a new fault free handset, but opposite party failed to respond. Ext. P8 is the postal receipt dated 18.05.2012. By virtue of Ext. P3, it is obvious that the said mobile handset developed troubles or problems within six months of its purchase. Even after rectification, the same problems repeated, thereby complainant could not use the phone continuously. The said handset is still in the custody of 3rd opposite party. None of the opposite parties responded positively. Complainant is not in a position to invoke the procedure provided under Sec. 13 (c) of the Consumer Protection Act. No purpose of the complainant served by the purchase of the said phone from 2nd opposite party. It is difficult to fathom as to why the opposite parties did not come to contest this case. The evidence produced by the complainant is unrebutted on record. With the above said evidence, the case of the complainant is clear, there is no hinge or loop to hang a doubt on. In view of the aforesaid evidence available on record, I am of the firm view that repeated problems or break down of the said hand set within warranty and non-rectification of the same by 3rd opposite party would be sufficient to show that the said handset is having serious manufacturing defects. The act of the 3rd opposite party in accepting the said mobile phone for service under warranty from the complainant and in non-returning the same after service to the complainant even after more than 1 year of its acceptance would definitely amount to deficiency in service. Any order to opposite parties to return the said mobile handset after service after a lapse of more than one year of its acceptance would never meet equity and ends of justice nor would it serve the purpose of complainant's purchase. Taking the overall situation, I deem that it will be expedient and justice will be well met if opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to replace the defective mobile phone handset (Nokia NC 5-03) with a new one of the same model along with compensation and cost of Rs. 5,000/-. If the said model is not available to replace, opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund the complainant the price of the mobile phone handset amounting to Rs. 9,400/- with 8% interest per annum along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and costs.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall jointly and severally replace the defective mobile phone handset (Nokia NC-5-03) with a new one of the same model. If the same model is not available to replace, opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund the complainant the price of the said mobile phone amounting to Rs. 9,400/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and costs. Opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which Rs. 9,400/- will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 29th day of June 2013.
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD, President.
jb
C.C. No. 407/2012
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
NIL
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of bill/invoice dated 12.04.2011 issued by opposite
party
P2 - Copy of 'Product and Safety Information'
P3 - Copy of service job sheet dated 17.10.2011
P4 - Copy of receipt dated 24.10.2011 for Rs. 499/- issued by
Nokia Care.
P5 - Copy of Nokia Care Protect Certificate of coverage.
P6 - Copy of service job sheet dated 30.03.2012.
P7 - Lawyer's notice dated 18.05.2012.
P8 - Copy of postal receipt.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
