COMPLAINT FILED: 28.05.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 25th AUGUST 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1203/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT R. Prakash (HAL)<br /> No. 387-1, 4th Cross,<br /> Srigandhanagar,<br /> Hegganahalli,<br /> Vishwaneedam Post,<br /> Bangalore – 560 091.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Nokia Priority Dealer,<br /> Concepts,<br /> Kiosk-2, Ground Floor,<br /> ‘Gopalan Mall’<br /> #148, Mysore Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 039.<br /> <br /> Advocate (V.B. Shivakumar)<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Nokia Care,<br /> Rajajinagar,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay the cost of the handset and some other compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant purchased one Nokia 6233 mobile from Gopalan Mall, Mysore Road at a total cost of Rs.8,250/-. From day one he was noticing one or the other problems. He took the said handset for repairs to OP.1, he could not get the expected result. Then he took the said handset as per the advise of OP.1 to OP.2. OP.2 though issued the job card, failed to detect the defect and cure the same. Being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP complainant left the said handset with OP.2. Though he has invested his hard earned money, he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because he could not get the service of the mobile for the purpose for which he purchased it. Thus he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. When his repeated requests and demands, went in vain he was forced to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP.1 filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. OP.1 did tried to trace out the defect in the said handset, it could not succeeded thereby it gave an alternative set to the complainant, complainant was not satisfied with the said set. No fault lies with OP.1. Thereafter the complainant took possession of a new set in place of the old one. So there is no liability lies with OP1. The complaint against OP.1 is to be dismissed. OP.2 did not appear and contest the matter. <br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP.1 has also filed the affidavit evidence. OP.2 did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased one Nokia 6233 model mobile phone for a valid consideration of Rs.8,250/- on 23.09.2007. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that from day one he is noticing one or the other problem with the handset, that is why he took the said handset to the Nokia Care namely OP.1. Though OP.1 did tried to detect the defect, failed to do so. OP.1 issued the job sheet noting the defect. On his insistence OP.1 gave some other handset as a replacement which is not agreeable for the complainant. OP.1 took atleast 3 weeks to return the said handset. Finally on 10.03.2008 he got another handset of blue colour which appears to be new one, but it was not exactly new one, even that handset was also not working properly. Thus he felt the deficiency in service against the OP.1.<br /> <br /> 7. Then as per the advise of the OP.1 he went to OP.2 and shown the said handset, even the said handset was also not working properly. OP.2 made to move from pillar to post for several times. Being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP.2 he left the handset with OP.2, till today it lies with OP.2. OP.2 is unable to detect the defect and cure the same. There is an inherent manufacturing defect in the said handset. The job sheets issued by the OP.2 is also produced. On going through the said service job sheets it makes abundantly clear that there is one or the other complaint with the said handset given to the complainant. Though complainant invested his hard earned money, he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the defect in the said handset. When OP.2 is unable to detect the defect it would have been more fair on the part of OP.2 to replace, but it failed to do so. So here we find the deficiency in service on the part of OP.2.<br /> <br /> 8. Complainant made repeated requests and demands every now and then, but he could not get any response from OP.2. The non-appearance of the OP.2 evenafter the service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP.2 admits its fault. When that is so, the complainant is entitled for certain relief against OP.2 only. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP.2 is directed to replace the defective mobile handset given to it for repairs by complainant with a brand new defect free handset within 4 weeks from the date of its communication of this order. Failing in which OP.2 is directed to pay the cost of the said mobile handset Rs.8,250/- along with a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 25th day of August 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />