Date of Filing:18.12.2007 Date of Order: 24.03.2008 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2008 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 2522 OF 2007 Manoj Kumar Ojha, Station Catering Flight, 410 Air Force Station, Jalahalli West, Bangalore-560 015. Complainant V/S 1. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., II Floor, Commercial Plaza, Radisson Hotel, N.H.8, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-37. 2. Prem Telecom, No.667, I Main Road, T. Dasarahalli, Bangalore-560057. Opposite Parties ORDER By the President, Sri. S.S. Nagarale This complaint is filed by the complainant claiming to replace the mobile handset with costs and compensation. The complainant has purchased Nokia 3110-C mobile handset on 2nd August-2007 from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.5,800/-. On 15th September-2007 some problems occurred in the mobile and as a result, the complainant personally visited the Nokia Care, Sanman Mobiles, Yeshwantpur, Bangalore for its rectification. After keeping the mobile two days it was rectified, but new problem in Blue tooth operation and over heating was noticed for which the handset was kept with them for rectification for 25 days. When the complainant visited the care center for collection of mobile, he found that the mobile had some problem in proper battery charging, in addition to the earlier problems. On 21st November-2007 the complainant received a call from the Care Centre to collect the unprepared handset without disclosing any reason. Despite keeping the mobile for such a long period and repeated requests of the complainant under the warranty period the complainant ignored and as such he feels immense humiliation with the dealing of the opposite party. Hence, the complaint. 2. Notice was served to opposite parties. Notice served by RPAD. Opposite parties put in appearance through their counsel and filed version. Opposite party No.1 filed defense version stating that, the case is sheer reflection of misuse of the mobile phone, hence the answering opposite party cannot be held responsible for irresponsible and careless and negligent handling of the mobile phone by the complainant. Even going by complaint alone, the complainant has made wild allegations against the answering opposite parties that have no legs to stand and fall flat from the very burden of their own contradictions. The opposite party provides a limited warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase of the product and during the limited warranty period the customer can get the defective products or parts thereof repaired/replaced from Nokia or its authorized service network, without payment of any charges. The complainant made allegation of major defect in the handset without adducing any documentary evidence whatsoever, is false and baseless. It is denied by the opposite party that the complainant has received a call on 21st November-2007 pertaining to collection of unprepared handset. The complainant is aware that the handset is a mechanical device and sometimes the rectification of time takes longer than usual so there is no question of ignoring warranty and in way it causes humiliation to the complainant. In view of all these reasons stated above, the opposite parties requested to dismiss the complaint. 3. Opposite party No.2 filed defence version stating that, if any problem arises the customer should go to the service center and Prem Telecom is not liable for the same and prayed to dismiss the complaint. 4. Opposite party No.1 filed affidavit evidence. Arguments are heard. 5. The points for consideration are:- 1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 2. Whether the opposite parties can be directed to replace the defective set? 6. Our findings to both the points are in the affirmative for the following:- REASONS 7. I have gone through the complaint, documents and affidavit. The complainant has purchased Nokia 3110-C Mobile set on 2/8/2007 for a sum of Rs. 5,800/-. The receipt has been produced. Since the mobile was not working properly, he gave it for repairs to the service center. The complainant has produced service job sheet. In spite of that, the set was not working properly. The complainant has requested that the defective handset be replaced. The hand set was under warranty. Therefore, it is the duty of the opposite party to replace the defective handset with defect free of same model. The Consumer Protection Act is enacted to safeguard the better interest of the customers. The opposite party is being a reputed company it should see that the customers are satisfied with their product. The customers having purchased new handset experienced trouble with the said instrument. Therefore, it becomes the duty of the opposite parties to replace the same by receiving the defective set. Therefore, it would be just fair and proper to order the opposite party to replace the mobile hand set which would be free of any defect along with warranty card. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 8. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to replace the Nokia 3110-C mobile handset to the complainant. The new handset should be free from any defect. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.500/- to the complainant towards costs of present proceedings. The order shall be complied with within 15 days from the date of this order. 9. Send the copy of this Order to all the parties free of costs immediately. 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2008. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
