IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.M.G.Hiremath<br /> B.Sc., L.L.B (Spl.)- President<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. G.V.Balasubramanya<br /> B.E., LL.M - Member<br /> <br /> CC 213/06 DATED 11-10-2006<br /> <br /> Complainant Mohammed Ishrar, House No.412, Bannimantap ‘C’ Layout, Mysore-570015.<br /> (By Shivakumar, Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. Nokia Mobi Care Centre, Nanies Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., No.2996/1B, 7th Cross, Kalidasa Road, V.V.Mohalla, Mysore-570002. Rep. by it’s Person-in-charge<br /> 2. M.M.Mobiles, D.No.185, 2nd Cross, Subash Nagar, MysoreRep. by it’s Proprietor Syed Moin<br /> (By B.Panish Kumar, Advocate for O.P.1 and M.Sanjay Jain, Advocate for O.P.2)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 27-07-2006<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 16-08-2006<br /> Date of order : 11-10-2006<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 ¾ MONTHS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member,<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant purchased a Nokia N-70 handset from the second opposite party on 19.4.2006 by paying Rs.19,500/-. However, the handset started giving trouble within a few days which forced him to take it to the first opposite party on 12.6.2006. He took the handset from the complainant assuring that it would be replaced soon. Neither the set was replaced nor the legal notice was replied. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint. He wants this Forum to direct the opposite parties to replace the handset or repay the cost. The complainant, also, wants damages of Rs.30,000/-. <br /> <br /> 2. The first opposite party is the service centre for Nokia mobile handsets. The second opposite party is the seller of the handset. The first opposite party has admitted receiving the handset for servicing. He says that the service centre is a Level 2 service centre and the problem in the handset was such that it had to be sent to Level 3 service centre which is at Bangalore. He, further, says that this fact was made known to the complainant at the time of receiving the handset for repairs. On 4.7.2006 the Level 3 service centre at Bangalore agreed for replacement of the handset and the same was attempted to be conveyed to the complainant. The first opposite party states that the complainant had furnished his mobile telephone number wrongly, as a result of which there was some delay in communicating the information through his landline and it was finally communicated on 14.7.2006. However, the complainant instead of going over to the office of the first opposite party to collect the new handset sent a legal notice on 15.7.2006 and filed this complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. The second opposite party has merely stated that the complainant never visited his shop after purchasing the handset. He says that he is only a seller and it is the first opposite party who has to provide the service. <br /> <br /> <br /> 4. From the above averments, the following points arise for our consideration:<br /> a) Whether the complainant proves that the opposite parties have rendered deficient service by delaying the repair/replacement of the handset?<br /> b) Whether the first opposite party proves that the delay, if any, was due the nature of repairs and complainant not providing correct telephone number? <br /> c) Whether the complaint is maintainable against the second opposite party?<br /> d) What relief or order?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> <br /> Point 4(a): Partly in the affirmative<br /> <br /> Point 4(b): Partly in the affirmative<br /> <br /> Point 4(c): In the negative<br /> <br /> Point 4(d): As per final order<br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point 4(a):- There is no dispute about the fact that the complainant purchased the handset on 19.4.2006. There is, also, no dispute that the handset was accepted by the first opposite party for repairs on 12.6.2006. Copy of the service job sheet has been filed both by the complainant and the first opposite party. It is the contention of the first opposite party that the repairs required by the handset were such that it could not be done here and as such it had to be sent to Level 3 [L3] service centre. One of the conditions mentioned on the service job sheet is that first opposite party is not responsible for any delay by the L3 service centre. The complainant has signed the service job sheet. To prove that the complainant’s handset was sent to L3 service centre, the first opposite party has filed a copy of the delivery challan dated 12.6.2006 which proves that the complainant’s handset along with others was sent to L3 service centre at Bangalore, M/s Brightpoint India Pvt Ltd. We have, also noted that the handset was sent to Bangalore on the same day when the complainant handed it over to the first opposite party. The delivery note cum challan sent from M/s Brightpoint India Pvt Ltd dated 4.7.2006 reveals that the complainant’s handset could not be repaired. Till this stage no deficiency of service arises. The first opposite party has acted as fast as he could and he can not be held responsible for the delay at L3 service centre and this had been made known to the complainant.<br /> 7. After receiving information from L3 service centre on 4.7.2006, the first opposite party has tried to contact the complainant to ask him to come and take the new handset. The first opposite party has taken a specific stand that when he tried to contact the complainant on his mobile, he found that the telephone number given by the complainant on the service job sheet was wrong. In order to prove that he tried to contact the complainant on his mobile phone, he has produced call records of his telephone from 4.7.2006 to 14.7.2006. The complainant has given his mobile number as 9845964922. The complainant has not reiterated that this is his telephone number. From the call record submitted by the first opposite party it is seen that one call was made on 5.7.2006 and the call has cloaked 21 seconds. Strangely, complainant’s telephone numbers are found only on the copy of the service job sheet filed by the first opposite party and not on the copy of the job sheet filed by the complainant. After all both are photocopies of the same document. <br /> 8. From the above, it is clear that the delay, if any, in replacing the handset is 10 days only from 5.7.2006 to 14.7.2006. Secondly, the first opposite party did make an attempt to contact the complainant. The lapse, if it be called so, is in not contacting the complainant immediately on his landline when he found that the complainant’s mobile number was wrong. Had the first opposite party done so, the new handset would have been in the complainant’s hands as early as 5th or 6th, July. To this extent deficiency in service does exist. Hence, we answer the point partly in the affirmative. <br /> 9. Point 4(b):- We have already discussed in detail how the complainant’s handset had to be sent to Bangalore for repairs and how the L3 service centre reported that the set cannot be repaired. We have sufficient documents to understand the chain of events that led to the delay. The complainant knew that the first opposite party can not be held responsible for the delay if the set is sent to L3 service centre. In view of this we hold that the first opposite party has successfully proved that he is not responsible for the delay until he received the communication from L3 service centre. Hence, we answer the point partly in the affirmative. <br /> 10. Point 4(c):- The first opposite party is the service centre and the second opposite party only a seller. Though there are a number of decisions to the effect that the liability to render service is joint and several between the seller and the service centre, in this case, the complainant has rightly approached the first opposite party who is the service provider. It is not his case that he approached the second opposite party who refused to take the handset for service. Thus, the second opposite party had no role to play after selling the handset. No deficiency in service is attributable to him. Hence, we answer the point in the negative. <br /> 11. Though the delay in communicating to the complainant to come and collect the new handset is only 10 days, the complainant becomes entitled to proportionate amount of compensation for the deficiency in service. The first opposite party’s telephone record reveals that except one attempt made on 5.7.2006 to contact the complainant, the next attempt was made only on 14.7.2006. Whatever attempt was made on 14.7.2006 i.e contacting the complainant on his landline, could have been made on 5th July itself, when the first Opposite party realized that the complainant had given his mobile number wrongly. The complainant on his part has not shown diligence in giving correct telephone number. Further, he has not placed on record any material to show the loss he suffered on account of delay of 10 days in getting the new handset. We have noted that he has still not collected the new handset. He could have done so reserving his right to sue for damages. The learned counsel for the first opposite party has submitted that the complainant can collect the new handset anytime. Under such circumstances we cannot award any special damages. With these observations we proceed to pass the following order<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> <br /> A. Complaint is partly allowed. <br /> <br /> B. The Complainant is directed to collect the handset within one month from the date of this order. <br /> <br /> C. The first opposite party is directed to pay the complainant damages of Rs.300/- within one month from the date of this order failing which the said amount will carry interest at 10% p.a thereafter until the date of payment.<br /> <br /> D. No costs. <br /> <br /> E. Give a copy of this order to both parties according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 11th October 2006)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (M.G.Hiremath) (G.V.Balasubramanya)<br /> President Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />