D.O.F:25/10/2021
D.O.O:21/08/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.184/2021
Dated this, the 21th day of August 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Prabin P.
S/o Mr. Prakashan P.R.,
Paranganatt House,
Krishna Nagar, Kumbla,
Koipady, Kasaragod,
Kerala – 671321.
(Advocates: Raghu Prasad & Rahul Das K.) : Complainant
And
- Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.,
Kailash Building, Flat No. 1204,
12th Floor,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi – 110001. : Opposite Parties
- Proprietor,
3G Mobile World,
MYG Future, Door No. 28/3656 R, R1 – R15,
Pottamal Junction, Calicut.
- Fortune Service,
5/3472 O, 1st Floor, Merry Land Square,
Thiruthiyad Road, Opp. Baby Hospital,
Calicut, Kerala – 673004.
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019. The case of the complaint is that he purchased a mobile phone NOKIA 7.2 DS from opposite party on 06/11/2019 by paying Rs. 19,500/-. The opposite party assured a guarantee of one year and if any defect, it will be replaced with additional warranty. It is noticed that touch screen is not functioning properly, calls are disconnected abruptly. Phone is taken to service centre requested for its replacement. But they could not solve the problem. It continued as not working. Notice is sent seeking repair or replacement, but no relief. So filed complaint for refund of its price or replacement of handset and compensation plus litigation costs. Complaint continued through his power of attorney.
Opposite party No.1 Notice served, filed its written version opposite party No.2 and No.3 set exparte. Opposite party No.1 admitted having purchased the phone denied having any defect or manufacturing defect. The complainant failed to prove the alleged defect by getting it tested by exparte. Warranty does not cover refund but only repair. There is no deficiency in service. Set is repaired as and when brought. Suffering of damages is denied. Allegations are denied and prayed to dismiss complaint.
The complainant produced documents. Ext.A1 is the original purchase invoice. Ext. A2 to A4 is Job Sheet, Ext. A5 is legal notice copy. The opposite party not adduced any evidence.
Following points raised for consideration:
- Whether there is any manufacturing defect to mobile set? Whether complainant entitled for its replacement or refund?
- Whether warranty covers only repair and service? Whether complainant entitled for compensation? If so, for what reliefs?
Ext.A3 is the copy of lawyer notice shows that it is sent on 30/04/2023. Mobile was purchased on 06/11/2019. Warranty is for one year. First service request was on 19/08/2020. Problem again noted only on 25/11/2021. Any way complainant has no problem in touch screen if caused due to any manufacturing defect. Furthermore complainant has not taken any steps to appoint any technical expert to prove the case of manufacturing defect. Hence manufacturing defect is not proved in the case.
The opposite party No.1 in their written version claims that its intent is to serve the customer and provide after sales service and not intend to deny the same under any circumstances. Furthermore in version it is also claimed that opposite party No.1 is a renowned company for past several years. Whereas here is a customer having invested his hard earned money for buying a mobile set, having chosen the much renowned product of Nokia Company, supplied with such a printed warranty card made him to believe that warranty is for a period of one year. As per warranty repairs/services are duly attended to. Considering the good gesture on the part of opposite party No.1 in offering repair without any cost as one time exception and hand set is duly rectified.
The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, short coming or inadequacy or in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The complainant has no case that service provided by opposite party was faulty imperfect deficient or inadequate in quality, nature or manner of performance, complainant has no case that service did not confirm to express warranty or the terms and conditions of the contract. The commission finds that complainant sent notice on 30/04/2021 whereas Job Sheet is dated 25/01/2020. Complaint is filed on 01/11/2021. The complainant has no case after its last service he has taken mobile for repair prior to sending notice or prior to filing complaint for any complaint. From the evidence made available, there is no negligence in the service of manufacturer or dealer or service provider in the case. There is thus no deficiency in service of opposite parties of unfair trade practice. As and when problem arose mobile is taken to opposite party No.3 and on there it was attended without any delay and returned back after service and therefore no deficiency in service. Thus complainant not entitled to any compensation thereof for reasons stated above.
In the result, complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Original purchase invoice
A2 to A4 – Job sheet
A5 – Legal notice
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
