Complaint filed on: 19-05-2012 Disposed on: 20-09-2013 BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 C.C.No.1025/2012 DATED THIS THE 20th SEPTEMBER 2013 PRESENT SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT SRI.H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA, MEMBER Complainant: - R.Ramya Rao, No.5, Karpaga Vinayaka Nilaya, 1st Main, Ashirwad Colony, Horamavu, Banasawadi, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 043 V/s Opposite parties: - 1. Nokia India Private Limited, Registered office, Flat no.1204, 12th Floor, Kailash building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110 001 2. Kamal Aggarwal Ujala Communication Pvt. Ltd Flat no.156, Sector 12, Pocket 3, Dwarka, New Delhi-75 3. Concepts Inc., LG-3, the pavilion, 62 & 63, MG Road, Bangalore-560 001 ORDER SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the OPs, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying to pass an order, directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.25,149=00 alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of purchase, to pay Rs.50,000=00 towards compensation, and to pay Rs.10,000=00 towards cost of litigation. 2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under. The complainant has purchased a Nokia GSM-N series, Model no.N-8 bearing IMEI No.353684041296562 for Rs.25,149=00 vide invoice no.SI/6122 dated 23-10-2010 from Concepts Inc, LG-3, the pavilion, 62 and 63, MG road, Bangalore. The said handset was manufactured by Nokia India Pvt. Ltd, the said handset was purchased by the complainant from Concepts Inc who being the 3rd OP and it was accompanied by one year warranty which could be availed at Nokia authorized service centre all over India. The said handset was contained in a sealed package. On 8-11-2010 after expiry of hardly 15 days from the date of purchase of the said handset, it suddenly stopped functioning and did not switch on despite attempts by the complainant. So the complainant submitted the handset to Nokia Care Centre Ujala Communication Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi for rectification of the manufacturing defect in the said handset. The complainant was provided with job sheet no.224433527/101109/37 issued by the service centre. The complainant once again through her father on 18-11-2010 submitted the handset for repair with the service centre which was the second time within one month from the date of purchase of the said handset. The technician of the service centre upon the inspection of the said handset admitted that the handset has a manufacturing defect because of which it was switching off automatically and was not switching on in the normal mode. The technician of the service centre assured that the said handset which had a manufacturing defect would be replaced by a new handset of same make and model. Accordingly the complainant waited for over a period of 12 days, but the said handset was not replaced. On 26-11-2010 the complainant visited the service centre in Dwarka where he was offered a handset which was not contained in sealed pack contrary to the assurance of the service centre technician. Therefore the complainant refused to accept the handset. On 30-11-2010 wrote to the contact centre of Nokia and one Vijay from the Nokia Care line contacted the complainant and gave a customer case ID bearing no.1-11-22295591667 and it was assured by the said Vijay that the complainant could visit the service centre and obtain a fresh handset upon the request. On the basis of the assurance provided by Nokia care line, the complainant then visited the service centre in Dwarka, the head of the service centre Kamal Aggarwal offered a loose handset which was not contained in a sealed box. The complainant then referred to the email sent by the Nokia care line. However Kamal Aggarwal did not agree to such request. On 28-12-2010 the complainant wrote to the Nokia Care line stating that, the service centre did not provide the handset in the sealed box and that Nokia does not give a sealed box. Despite a lapse of over 10 months, from the date of purchase of the said handset, no action has been taken by the OPs to replace the same. The complainant had purchased the handset on 23-10-2010 in view of the inherent manufacturing defect in the said handset, the complainant has been unable to use the said handset which was purchased by her father, so that the complainant could reach him anytime, since the complainant’s father travels most of the time due to the work schedule he has since he is a development officer, and also the said handset could not be used for more than 10 days even from the date of purchase which caused much added burden on the complainant to get it replaced. The OP did not leave any stone unturned in contributing to the agony of the complainant. The service centre has admitted that the phone has an inherent manufacturing defect. The complainant sent legal notice to the OPs on 6-9-2011, but he did not receive any response from the OPs, the complainant once again sent legal notice addressed to Kamal Aggarwal on 10-10-2011 and no response was received till date. The complainant has been made to undergo harassment, mental agony due to no effort made by the OPs to rectify the problem in the handset. The complainant was forced to purchase a brand new handset to give to his daughter. The OPs are guilty of providing products with manufacturing defect, and the OPs are also guilty of giving false assurances, that the said handset will be replaced and thereafter have not complied with their statement. Hence the preset complaint is filed. 3. After service of the notice, the OPs no.1 and 3 did not appear before this forum and they have been called out absent and they were placed expert and posted the case for filing of the affidavit of the complainant. The complaint against the OP no.2 was deleted by the complainant. 4. So as to prove the case, the complainant has filed her affidavit by way of evidence and produced six copies of documents which are marked as Annexure-A to F. We have heard the arguments of the complainant and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of complainant meticulously. 5. One R.Ramya Rao W/o. Vikram Rajagopal, who being the complainant has stated in her affidavit that, she had purchased a Nokia GSM-N series, Model no.N-8 for Rs.25,149=00. The said handset was manufactured by Nokia India Pvt. Ltd, the said handset was purchased by her from OP no.3 and it was accompanied by one year warranty. The said handset was contained in a sealed box. On 8-11-2010 after expiry of 15 days from the date of purchase of the said handset, it suddenly stopped functioning and did not switch on despite attempts made by her, then she submitted the handset to Nokia Care Centre for rectification of the manufacturing defect, and she was provided with job sheet no.224433527/101109/37 issued by the service centre. On 16-11-2010 the service centre handed over the handset to her on charging the same and after repeated attempts the handset did not switch on. Once again she sent through her father on 18-11-2010 to service centre for repair and this was the second time within one month from the date of purchase. The technician of the service centre upon the inspection admitted that the handset has a manufacturing defect because of which it was switching off automatically and it was not switching on in the normal mode, that technician of the service centre assured that the said handset would be replaced by a new one, so she waited for over a period of 12 days, but the said handset was not replaced. In fact, evasive answers were given by the service centre on inquiry On 26-11-2010 she visited the service centre in Dwarka where he was offered a handset which was not contained in sealed pack , she refused to accept the handset. On 30-11-2010 she wrote to the contact centre of Nokia and one Vijay from the Nokia Care line contacted her and gave a customer case ID bearing no.1-11-22295591667 and it was assured by the said Vijay that she could visit the service centre and obtain a fresh handset upon the request, and accordingly she visited the service centre in Dwarka, one Kamal Aggarwal who being the head of the service centre offered a loose handset and she then referred to the email sent by the Nokia care line. However Kamal Aggarwal did not agree to such request. On 28-12-2010 she wrote to the Nokia Care line stating that, the service centre did not provide the handset in the sealed box. Despite a lapse of over 10 months, from the date of purchase, no action was taken by the OPs to replace the mobile hand set. Only an open loose handset was offered to her contrary to the assurance given by the technician. She had purchased the handset on 23-10-2010 and she has become unable to use the handset which was purchased by her father, so that she could reach him anytime, and the said handset could not be used for more than 10 days even from the date of purchase which caused much added burden on her to get it replaced. The service centre has admitted that the phone has an inherent manufacturing defect, which gives a valid cause of action, she has been made to undergo harassment, mental agony on account of negligence of OPs in not rectifying the problem, she was forced to purchase a brand new handset to give to his daughter, so she has come up with the present complaint, so order be passed as prayed for. 6. The above said assertions of the complainant have remained uncontroverted. The OPs have neither filed version nor denied the sworn testimony of the complainant, so under the circumstance, we have no reasons to disbelieve the oral testimony of the complainant. 7. Let us have a glance at the relevant documents of complainant. Annexure-A is the copy of tax invoice given by the 3rd OP in the name of complainant dated 23-10-2010 for having purchased N-8-Nokian GSM-N series for a total sum of Rs.25,149=00 including VAT. Annexure-B is the copy of service job sheet issued by the OP in the name of complainant dated 9-11-2010 and in major symptom column it is written as Power does not switch on and below the comments, it is written as 4101-phone is dead. Annexure-C is the copy of email letter sent by one Vijay from Nokia Care line dated 30-11-2010 addressed to the complainant informing her to visit Nokia Care centre wherein she will get replacement of new phone. The said document contained letter of S.R.Rao addressed to one Kamal of Nokia company stating that he went to Nokia Care centre, Dwarka and asked for a sealed new phone but again gave loose phone which is totally contradicting and Kamal Aggarwal confirmed that Nokia does not give a sealed piece and he gave phone to Nokia care on 9-11-2010 and till date he is unable to give a proper answer. If he does not receive new sealed piece within 10 days, he has as no option but to issue a legal notice for harassment and damages. Other email letter correspondences produced by the complainant go to reveal that, inspite of sending email to the representative of the 1st OP, the complainant did not get a new sealed piece of mobile and the problem of complainant was not attended to by the OPs. Annexure-E is the copy of letter sent by the complainant to OPs alleging that within 15 days from the date purchase of mobile, it stopped functioning and the said handset did not switch one and the technician of service centre told that, it has manufacturing defect and inspite of making several attempts, set was not replaced with new set, so called upon the OPs to refund the bill amount of Rs.25,149=00, mental agony and cost of the notice and the said notice was sent through courier service and postal authority. 8. The oral evidence of complainant that, inspite of making several correspondences to set right the problem of mobile handset purchased by her the same was not solved and as on this day, the mobile handset has become non use stands corroborated by annexure-A to F being the copies of tax invoice, service job sheet, verification of email correspondences between the complainant and OPs and legal notice. The complainant who comes to the forum seeking relief has proved her case by placing believable material evidence that, the OPs are negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs in not rectifying the mistake of the mobile handset as she started getting the problem of mobile handset within 15 days of purchase of the mobile handset. In view of the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the OPs no.1 and 3, who being the manufacturer and dealer, the complainant is entitled to get back the price of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.25.149=00 from the OPs. So the OPs no.1 and 3 are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.25,149=00 to the complainant alongwith 8% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of this order, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which, the OPs no.1 and 3 shall pay the said amount to the complainant alongwith 9% interest per annum on the said amount from date of this order to till the date of realization, and the OPs no.1 and 3 are further directed to pay Rs.3,000=00 and Rs.2,000=00 to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation respectively, and accordingly, the complaint of complainant is partly sustainable. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER The complaint of the complainant is partly allowed. The OPs no.1 and 3 are directed to refund Rs.25,149=00 to the complainant alongwith 8% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of this order, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which, the OPs no.1 and 3 shall pay the said amount to the complainant alongwith 9% interest per annum on the said amount from date of this order to till the date of realization. The OPs no.1 and 3 are further directed to pay Rs.3,000=00 and Rs.2,000=00 to the complainant towards mental agony and cost of litigation respectively. The complainant is directed to return back the mobile set to the OP no.3 after receipt of the entire amount from the OPs no.1 and 3. The complaint of the complainant filed against the OP no.2 is dismissed. Supply free copy of this order to both parties. (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 20th day of September 2013). MEMBER PRESIDENT |
