Date of Filing:16.11.2007<br /> Date of Order: 06.03.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2285 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> Reshma,<br /> D/o H.G. Subramanya Setty,<br /> R/at No.24, Rupal 10th Cross, <br /> Yellappa Garden,<br /> Malleswaram,<br /> Bangalore-560 003. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> Represented by its Manager,<br /> II Floor, Commercial Plaza,<br /> Radisson Hotel, N.H.8,<br /> Mahipalpur, New Delhi-37.<br /> <br /> 2. Madhu K.N, <br /> Manager, Nokia Care Point,<br /> No.25/1, Srikanta Mahal,<br /> I Floor, I Cross, Sampige Road,<br /> Malleswaram,<br /> Bangalore-560003.<br /> <br /> 3. Kailash,<br /> Connexxions, No. 24/5, <br /> 5th Cross, <br /> Malleswaram, <br /> Bangalore-03. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the Member Smt. D. Leelavathi<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed by the complainant claiming refund of Rs.30,600/- or to replace the mobile handset with costs and compensation.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant has purchased Nokia N-95 Series mobile handset from the opposite party No.3 under invoice dated 25/6/2007 bill No.SI/HO. 1341 for Rs. 30,600/- which had a manufacturing defect. The complainant has given the handset for repairs to opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 had taken a handset for repair and given a service job sheet and assured the complainant that the said mobile will be repaired within one week. After one week complainant had approached and enquired about the repair and the opposite party deliberately answered to the complainant that to get back after one week as the handset and headset was sent for repair to head unit. As per the instructions of the opposite party No.2 the complainant visited the service center on 14th August-2007 to get back the handset, but opposite party No.2 told that the handset which was given by complainant for repair could not be repaired and it will be replaced with a new handset for which opposite party has made a note on job sheet. The complainant believing the assurance given by the opposite party No.2, approached opposite party No.2 on 23/8/2007 to receive new handset and at that time the opposite party No.2 had given an handset without box and saw the handset to the utter shock and surprise the set given by the opposite party No.2 was old one and full of scratches and the complainant refused to take the same. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint.<br /> 2. Notice was served to opposite party. Notice served by RPAD. Opposite party No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel. In spite of service of notice opposite party No.3 has not appeared before the Forum and contested the matter and he is placed exparte. Opposite party No.1 filed defense version stating that, he is agreed to repair or to refund the amount and said that this fault has occurred due to misuse of the mobile. Opposite party No.2 has agreed to replace or refund and also given a standby set to the complainant and opposite party No.1 states that, every mobile set of the Nokia is subjected to quality control and testing before delivery into market. Several kinds of assessment and reassessment are done by the team of professional before launching in the market. The replacement of the handset is limited only to such cases where the product is beyond repair or where there is a genuine problem of repeated repairs of the same defect and prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Complainant and opposite party No.1 filed affidavit evidence in support of their case. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:-<br /> 1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the<br /> part of the opposite parties?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any <br /> relief? <br /> <br /> 6. Our findings to both the points are in the affirmative for the following:- <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 7. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased Nokia N-95 Series for Rs.30,600/- including VAT. Within one month from the date of purchase i.e., on 25/6/2007, the mobile became defective on 26/7/2007. The same was handed over to the opposite party No.2 who promised to return after repair within a week. Since the complainant has urgent work to go out of station she requested the opposite party No.2 to return the repaired mobile within a week, but after several visits the opposite party has not repaired, but given the substandard handset which the complainant has refused to accept. This shows the negligence of opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 is the Nokia manufacturing company. Since the mobile has manufacturing defect as stated by opposite party No.2 who is a service center of Nokia Company. Since Nokia is a reputed company the consumers blindly go in for purchase of new models of Nokia and many have found that most of the new Nokia handsets which has been launched has manufacturing defects. It is the duty of the opposite party to see that, customers are looked into promptly and it is the responsibility of the opposite party to provide defect free handset. The opposite party had taken Rs.30,600/- as price of the handset and one year warranty was given for the purchase and in this warranty period itself, the set did not work properly and it had manufacturing problem. Therefore, the complainant deposited the same for service. But the opposite party has failed to do the service and hand over the defect free set to the complainant. Consumer Protection Act is enacted for better protection of the rights of the consumers. In this case, the opposite party has failed to provide proper service to the complainant. The case made out by the complainant has gone unchallenged. In view of all these reasons stated above, it is just fair and proper to order the opposite party to replace or refund the defect free handset to the complainant. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 8. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to replace the Nokia N-95 mobile handset or to refund Rs.30,600/- to the complainant. The complainant is directed to handover the standby set on receiving new set without defect. The opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile set or to refund the amount immediately after receiving the order copy.<br /> <br /> 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2008.<br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER <br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />