PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 28th day of September 2012
Filed on : 27-06-2012
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 386/2012
Between
Shine N. Prabhakaran, : Complainant
D/o. Prabhakaran, Nishe Nivas, (By Adv. K.P. Pradeep,
Irimpanam P.O., Thripunithura, Golden Jubilee Chambers,
Ernakulam, Kerala-682 309. Complex, High Court road,
Kochi-31)
And
1. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., : Opposite parties
Registered office, Flat No. 1204, (O.Ps 1,4 & 5 absent.
12th Floor, Kailalsh Building, O.Ps 2 & 3 deleted from the
Kasturbhagandhi Marg, party array)
New Delhi-110 001.
rep. by its Chairman/
Managing Director.
2. The care Manager,
Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.,
SP Infocity Industrial Plot
No. 243, Udyog Vihar, Phase 1,
Dundahera, Gurgaon,
Haryana-122 016.
3. Officer-in-charge,
Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.,
Nokia telecom sez
Sipcot Industrial Park,
Phase III-A1, Sriperumbudur,
Tamil Nadu-602 105.
4. M/s. Mobile World,
32/2471-A1. N. Square Building,
Opp. BPCL Pump, Palarivattom,
Ernakulam, rep. by its Authorized
Signatory-682 025.
5. Service-in-charge,
Nokia Care Service Centre,
M/s. Poovath International,
Door No. 28/3330 C,
2nd floor, Sajama Complex,
SA Road, Kadavanthra-682 020.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The undisputed facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:
On 21-01-2012 the complainant purchased a cellular mobile handset from the 4th opposite party at a price of Rs. 25,500/-. Immediately on purchase the handset became defunct. Though the service centre repaired the same on two occasions the defect persisted. Again on 11-06-2012 the handset went out of order and the complainant entrusted the phone with the 5th opposite party, but they could not repair it. On 12-06-2012 the complainant sent an e-mail to the opposite parties to rectify the defect of the handset, on 13-06-2012 the complainant received a reply stating that complaint would be looked into on a priority basis. On 15-06-2002 the complainant sent another e-mail to the opposite parties, on 16-06-2012 the opposite parties sent reply stating that the higher authorities are working on the complaint. On 23-06-2012 the complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the hand set to which there was no response. The complainant had to suffer a lot of inconveniences and mental agony due to the deficiency in service and inaction on the part of the opposite parties. So the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the price of the gadget together with compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.
2. Despite service of notice from this Forum the 1st, 4th and 5th opposite parties did not respond to the same for reasons of their own. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties were deleted from the party array at the instance of the complainant. Proof affidavit has been filed by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant. Heard the counsel for the complainant .
3. The points that came up for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price
of the mobile hand set from the opposite parties?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of
Rs. 50,000/- from the opposite parties?
4. Point No. i. Ext. A1 invoice goes to show that the complainant purchased a mobile handset from the 4th opposite party on 21-01-2012 at a price of Rs. 25,500/- which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The opposite parties did not file any written version in this Forum, however during the proceedings in this Forum the 5th opposite party filed a memorandum on 28-09-2012 seemingly belatedly which reads as follows:
“We are ready to settle the case with the replacement of Nokia Lumia 800 handset because of the customer handset (Nokia E7-00) currently not available in the market kindly do needful”
By filing this memorandum the 5th opposite party has expressed their willingness to replace the handset of the complainant. Such goodwill as expressed can not be taken lightly which not only means that the opposite parties are not only willing to rectify the defects if any but also to abate the agony of the complainant ;such is a circumstances or standing where law lies low. According to the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission a frustrated consumer is entitled to get refund of the price of the gadget ( Sony Ericson India Ltd. V. Ashish Agarwal (iv) 2007 CPJ 294 NC ). Therefore the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the gadget from the 1st opposite party.
5. Point No. ii. In this case the opposite parties failed to redress the grievances of the complainant in time. The complainant has been no fault of his has been put to unnecessary inconveniences and hardships which calls for compensation. We award a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.
6. Since no costs of the proceedings are prayed for nothing need be proceed with on that account.
7. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:
i. The opposite parties 1,4 and 5 shall jointly and severally
refund the price of the gadget and its accessories to the
complainant with 12% for the date of purchase till
realization.
ii. The opposite parties 1, 4 and 5 shall jointly and
severally pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant by way of
compensation for the reasons stated above.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th day of September 2012
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of invoice
A2 : Copy of service centre details
A3 : Copy of e-mail letter dt. 23-08-2012
Opposite party’s Exhibits : Nil
