DATE OF FILING- 1.7.2013
DATE OF DISPOSAL-26.3.14
O R D E R
Miss S.L.Pattnaik,President
Alleging defect in goods and deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties(for short ‘O.Ps’) in supplying a defective mobile set to the complainant, he has claimed refund of the cost of the defective mobile set, compensation as Forum deem fit and proper and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- on the following grounds.
2- The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he purchased a Nokia Mobile handset having model No.5800 Xpress bearing IMEI No.358279036733044 along with other related accessories from O.P.No.2 on dt.8.1.2010 at a consideration of Rs.13,490/-(Thirteen thousand four hundred ninty) only as per the retail invoice bearing No.05 granted by the said O.P. The O.P.No.1 is the manufacturing company. O.P.No.2 is the authorized retailer and O.P.No.3 is the authorized service centre of the company. After two months of such purchase the set started giving some technical problems for which complainant handed over the hand set to O.P.No.3 and as per instruction of O.P.No.3 the complainant deposited charges of Rs.565/- towards the cost of extending of warranty of the said mobile on l8.10.2010 vide money receipt No.261. The O.P.No.3 in every time after receipt of the above set issued service job sheets to the complainant. The complainant also approached to
the Nokia through automated Nokia care Service site, through his e-mail ID niranjana panda 74@ g mail.com and through core sites vide case ID No.39830/2/2012 on 24.4.2012. After several complaints before the Opposite Parties, the company replaced the said mobile with another model C6 Nokia but the new set is also defective one. Hence, being aggrieved the complainant has filed this case before this forum for justice.
3- In support of his case the complainant filed several documents which are marked as Annexure 1 to 16 respectively to prove his case along with citations. Notices were duly served to the Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties appeared through their learned counsel on dt. 21.8.2013 and also filed a petition praying for time to file version. Repeated opportunities were given to Opposite Parties for filing of their version but they did not file. So on 12.12.2013 all the Opposite Parties were set ex-parte. Again on 11.2.2014 for O.P.No.1 and 3 Sri B.K.Padhy, Advocate and Associates filed a Vakalatnama along with a set aside petition praying to set aside the ex-parte order of dt. 12.12.13. The Forum allowed the set aside petition against O.P.No.1 and 3. But no one is appeared for O.P.No.2. Advocate for O.P.No.1 and 3 appeared and filed written version. The O.P.No.1 and 3 while admitting the purchase of hand set from O.P.No.2 and denied all the allegations raised by the complainant. It is stated by them that they carried out the entire repairing and servicing of the mobile set very honestly and after that also for smooth functioning of customer-dealer relationship as per the joint decisions of the O.P.No.1 and 3,another better and costlier model Nokia C-6 was provided to the complainant, but he was not satisfied with the same. Since there is no deficiency in service on their part, they prayed before this Forum for dismissal of the case.
Relying on the pleading of the parties, we take up the following issues for adjudication. I S S U E S
Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?
Whether compensation has to be awarded as prayed for by the complainant and to what compensation the complainant is entitled for?
4- Heard the advocate for the complainant as well as advocate for the O.P No.1 and 3. Perused the record. Purchase of the mobile phone is admitted by both the parties vide the money receipt filed with the case record and it is proved from the joint version of the O.P.No.1 and 3.
5- O.P No.1 and 3 vide his version accepted the occurring of problem with the mobile phone which is also proved further from the service job sheets filed by the complainant. Thus, the facts admitted need not be proved again. From the above averments of the complainant and the documentary evidences relied upon, we find that after purchase of the set, the set has become defective and this has been received for repair and job cards issued. Even after repair of the set, the set has not functioned properly. Finally, the O.P. provided him a new set of C6 model Nokia handset bearing IMEI No.3579010484461711 which was also found defective and brought to the notice of the O.Ps where the set was received for repair and job cards also issued as it revealed the documents vide annexure 13,14 and 15 annexed to the case record..
6- The defect occurred in the said mobile which the complainant made aware to the
Opposite Parties within the warranty period which was not replaced or rectified by the
Opposite Parties in due course of time amounts to utter deficiency in service and unfair trade
practice on the part of the Opposite Parties to the customer. Due to these acts and attitude of
the Opposite Parties and intentional delay to rectify the defect the complainant has not only
suffered mentally but also got financial loss and physical harassment and the purpose of
purchasing of mobile set by him has also been frustrated. Hence, the Opposite Parties are
negligent in duties and deficiency in providing proper service to the customer. However, the complainant in his complaint petition has prayed for fixing liability against Opp.Party No.1 and he has not claimed against other O.Ps. Under the above circumstances, we find that the Opposite Party No.1 is the manufacturer of the mobile handset and other O.Ps are its retailers. Hence, the O.P No.1 will be solely liable for the cause and sufferings of the complainant. O R D E R
In the result, we allow the case of the complainant against Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to refund to the complainant Rs.14,055/-(Rupees fourteen thousand fifty five) towards the price of the said mobile set and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand) only as compensation for negligence and deficiency in service. The complainant is also directed to hand over the defective mobile hand set C6 model vide IMEI No.35791048446171 to the O.P No.1 with proper receipt and acknowledgement at the time of receiving monetary compensation. The order is to be complied by the Opposite Parties within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the total awarded amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of actual realization. The case is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me on this 26th day of March,2014.
I AGREE(MEMBER) I AGREE(MEMBER) PRESIDENT
