COMPLAINT FILED: 29.11.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 10th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 2599/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Dr. A.K. Joshi,<br /> S/o. K.T. Jolli,<br /> Aged about 59 years,<br /> R/at No. 33, ‘Srinidhi’<br /> 3rd Cross, Chandra Layout,<br /> Vijayanagara,<br /> Bangalore – 560 040.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (C. Suresh)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Care Manager,<br /> Nokia India (Pvt.) Ltd.,<br /> 4F, Tower – A & B,<br /> Cyber Green, DLF Cyber City,<br /> Sector 25-A,<br /> Gurgaon – 122 002.<br /> Hariyana – India.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The Manager,<br /> Nokia Care,<br /> The Care Point,<br /> No. 652, 1st Floor,<br /> 11th Main, 6th Block,<br /> Jayanagara,<br /> Bangalore – 560 011.<br /> <br /> Advocate (K. Nikesh Shetty)<br /> <br /> <br /> 3. The Proprietor,<br /> Sangeetha,<br /> No. 37, Sannidhi Road,<br /> Basavanagudi,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to replace the defective Nokia handset and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant purchased one Nokia N78 handset manufactured by OP.1 from OP.3 the dealer for a total sum of Rs.19,400/- on 20.07.2008, it carried a year warranty. Unfortunately within 10 days or so from the date of purchase he noticed the defect in the said handset. Immediately he contacted the OP.3, OP.3 directed the complainant to approach OP.2 the Care Point of Nokia. Complainant went to OP.2 and handed over the handset for the repairs. OP.2 issued the job card, but unable to detect the defect and cure the same. Though they returned the said handset, but it was not repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant, thereby complainant issued the legal notice on 30.09.2008 requesting OP’s either to replace the handset or refund the cost of the handset, but it went in futile. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he felt the deficiency in service, hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP’s. Though OP.3 is duly served with a notice, remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause, hence OP.3 is placed ex-parte. Then OP.1 and 2 filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP.1 and 2 the said handset was not handled properly, there was a liquid damage caused to the said handset, which is not covered under the warranty. The other defects pointed out by the complainant were attended to. In view of the warranty terms and conditions there is a limitation to extend the said benefit. OP acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The other allegations made by the complainant are baseless. The complainant himself has violated the terms and conditions of the warranty. Hence he is not entitled for the relief claimed. Among these grounds, OP.1 and 2 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP.1 and 2 have also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. 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 the OP’s?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. 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 Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased one Nokia N78 model mobile handset manufactured by OP.1 through OP.3 on 20.07.2008 for Rs.19,400/- and it carried warranty for a year. OP.2 is the care point of Nokia Product. According to the complainant within a span of 10 days from the date of purchase he noticed certain inherent manufacturing defect in the said handset, hence he approached the OP.3 and as per the directions of OP.3 he approached OP.2. But OP.2 is unable to detect the defect and cure the same. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service, that is why he caused the legal notice on 30.09.2008. Again there was no response. Under such circumstances he is advised to file this complaint. <br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is specifically contented that as and when complainant brought the said handset for the repairs it was attended to. A service job sheet clearly speaks to the defect like data cannot be saved, physical condition to be check, it is done. The customer the complainant having been satisfied with the said repairs endorsed the service job sheet and took back the handset. The service job sheet is produced. Thereafter also it appears complainant did not handle the said handset properly. Again he brought the said handset for the repairs to OP.2, OP.2 issued the service job sheet which is produced dated 23.08.2008. On the reading of the said job sheet complaints are phone hanging, liquid damage, datas cannot be saved and handset dead. Even for that also the customer has signed. There is an endorsement made on the said job sheet.<br /> <br /> 8. When we go through the manufacturers limited warranty clause – 6 it clearly mentions that “This Limited Warranty does not apply if the Product has been exposed to moisture to dampness or to extreme thermal or environmental conditions, etc.” So when there is a proof of liquid damage, in our view OP is justified in refusing to replace the said handset. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case it appears it is all due to the carelessness and negligence in handling the said handset by the complainant such defect must have occurred. For that OP cannot be blamed. The other allegation made by the complainant appears to be baseless. There is no proof of deficiency in service against the OP. The complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 10th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />