DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 25th day of July 2009.
Present : Smt. H. Seena, President : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair (Member) : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K. (Member) C.C.No.93/2008
Sithu Das.V.S. S/o. V T Sivadasan “Sreeragam” Aiswarya Colony Olavakkode Palakkad – 678 002 - Complainant (Adv. T.P. George) V/s
1. Nokia India Pvt Ltd The Customer Care (Complaints) The Care Manager Gurgaon Haryana State.
2. R JP Combines Nokia Priority Hajees English Church Road Near Mission School Palakkad – 678 014. 3. Agnus Nokia Care Adam Complex Noorani Shornur Road Palakkad. - Opposite Parties (Adv. Mini Francis)
O R D E R By Smt. H. Seena, President The case of the complainant in brief:- Complainant purchased an N72 model Nokia Mobile hand set from the 2nd Opposite party for a sum of Rs.9,399.52/-. After a few days the set started showing problems. The head set was not working properly. Left ear piece was dead. When the set was switched off and then switched on, there was blank display and only a white light appeared. On 13/11/2007 the set was taken to the 3rd Opposite party who is the authorised service agent - 2 - from Nokia Mobile at Palakkad through the 2nd opposite party. After a period of 18 days, the set was returned unrepaired stating that the spares were not available. A delivery note was also handed over stating “Hand set returned without repairs due to water damage”. According to the complainant, this statement was given with an ulterious motive. Further opposite party could not rectify the defect since its a manufacturing defect. Complaint occurred during the warranty period and hence complainant is entitled to get the mobile set replaced with a brand new one. According to the complainant, 1st and 2nd opposite party as the manufacturer and the dealer of the set is liable to replace it with a new handset and no relief is claimed against 3rd opposite party who tried his best to rectify the defect, but could not do as it was a manufacturing defect.
Opposite parties 1 and 2 did not appear before the forum even after receipt of notice. Hence Opposite parties 1 and 2 were set exparte. 3rd opposite party filed version. According to 3rd opposite party mobile phone was handed over to him for repair. On inspection it was found that the mobile hand set was damaged due to contact with liquid substance and the said defect is not fully curable one. The defect happened is due to the misuse of handling the set and therefore will not be covered by warranty. On thorough examination for few days it was found beyond repair. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
The evidence adduced consists of the proof affidavit and Exhibit A1 to A5 marked on the side of the complainant.
Matter was heard. We have gone through the evidence on record. Exhibit A1 evidence the purchase of the Mobile set from the 2nd opposite party. Exhibit A2 shows the fact that the same was entrusted with 3rd opposite party for repair and in Exhibit A3 it is specifically stated that set returned without repair due to water damage. The specific case of the complainant is that the mobile set was used by the complainant with utmost care and the damage caused is only due to the manufacturing defect. Complainant filed an interim application for appointing a Commissioner to note the defect in the mobile set. Application was allowed and no steps further was taken by the complainant. Complainant has not - 3 - produced the set before the forum for inspection. It is clear from records that the mobile set was damaged within the warranty period. Complainant has specifically stated that the same was damaged due to manufacturing defect. Even though from Exhibit A2 it is seen that the set was water damaged, complainant is disputing the same. 1st and 2nd opposite party being the dealer and manufacturer has not even appeared before the forum and adduced any contra evidence. In the absence of any contra evidence to that of the complainant's evidence, we are of the view that complaint be allowed.
Complainant has not claimed any relief against 3rd opposite party. Hence 3rd opposite party is exonerated from liability. In the result, complaint allowed. 1st and 2nd opposite parties are jointly and directly to pay an amount of Rs.9,399/- being the value of the set together with Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization. Pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of July 2009.
PRESIDENT (SD) MEMBER (SD)
MEMBER (SD) APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of Complainant Nil Witness examined on the side of Opposite party Nil
- 4 - Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext. A1 – Retail Invoice No.16966 of Nokia Priority dated 29/09/07. Ext. A2 - Service Job Sheet dated 13.11.07 of Aagnus Nokia Care. Ext A3 - Delivery Note of Aagnus Nokia Care dated 01/12/07
4. Ext. A4 series – Copy of letter dated 14/01/08 5. Ext. A5 – Copy of bill of BSNL for the period 01/11/07 to 31/12/04 6. Ext. A6 - Users Guide 7. Ext. A6a – Manufacturer's Limited Warranty.
Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party Nil Forums Exhibits Nil Cost (allowed) Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) allowed as cost of proceedings Forwarded/By Order
Senior Superintendent
......................Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
......................Smt.Preetha.G.Nair
......................Smt.Seena.H | | 
