Date of Filing: 08.02.2011
Date of Order: 15.04.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20
Dated: 15TH DAY OF APRIL 2011
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.: 272 OF 2011
Khushboo
No. G1, 15-D, Shrinidhi Residency
2, 21st Main, 17th Cross
J.P. Nagar 5th Phase
Bangalore 560 078 Complainant
V/S
Nokia Service Centre
No. 15, (Basement, 11th Main)
Jayanagar, 3rd Block East
Bangalore 560 011
Rep. by the Manager Opposite Party
ORDER
By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale
This is a complaint filed by the complainant.
The brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased mobile set for Rs. 17,000/- on 2nd August 2009 from Transcell Solution and Service, Nokia Priority dealer, Jayanagar, Bangalore. She is facing problems from past 8 – 10 months with the phone. There were some technical problems. While giving cell phone to repairs she always wanted to talk to higher authorities but no one bothered. Warranty was extended and she has paid Rs. 400/-. Just for scratch guard within 2 months she paid Rs. 1,300/-. Complainant written letters to the Manager, Nokia Service Centre but did not receive any response. She submitted that the opposite party did not bother to give response. Money has gone full waste. Complainant is going to suffer huge loss and harassment. Nokia gave her a bad impression. The complainant prayed that to help her and Nokia people be given direction for reimbursement of Rs. 85,000/- and also new Nokia 5800 as early as possible.
2. After admitting the complaint notice issued to opposite party. Opposite party appeared in person on 21.03.2011 and case adjourned to 12.04.2011 for filing of defence version. On 12.04.2011 the opposite party filed version stating that the problem mentioned by the complainant is not true. The customer phone was not in warranty when it was given for service and they have clearly informed customer about the same. The customer did not get the handset repaired and took the handset back. The opposite party requested the customer to come to service centre and get the phone repaired and they are only charging for the spare part which needs to be replaced and no service (labour) charges will be charged for the repairs and the opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint.
3. Arguments are heard.
4. Perused the documents.
5. The points for consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
REASONS
6. The complainant has produced invoice of Transcell Solutions Services Nokia Priority Dealer, Jayanagar III Block, Bangalore. This invoice is dated 2nd August 2009. As per this invoice the complainant had purchased Nokia 5800 mobile set for Rs. 17,000/-. He has produced another invoice dated 5th September 2009 to show that she has purchased 5800 Screen Protector for Rs. 400/-. The complainant has produced service job sheet dated 9th December 2010. As per this service job sheet the problem was display mechanically broken. Opposite party submitted that there is no warranty for replacement of mobile set which was mechanically broken. However, the opposite party submitted that complainant be asked to give the set to the service centre and they are ready to repair it and they will charge only for spare parts which needs to be replaced and they will not charge service (Labour) charges. The defence of the opposite party appears to be just, fair and reasonable. When the mobile was mechanically broken how can the opposite party shall be held responsible for free repairs and replacement of parts. Complainant has to give mobile phone to the service centre. The opposite party has come forward to give free service. This offer shall be accepted by the complainant. The complainant has prayed reimbursement of Rs. 85,000/- in her complaint. This type of prayer is meaningless. On what basis and authority the complainant claims reimbursement of Rs. 85,000/- from the opposite party. Since opposite party is only a service centre, there is no obligation on the part of opposite party service centre to reimburse or pay the cost of the mobile or compensation to the customers. The complainant even has not made the Transcell Solutions and Services, the dealer as party to the present proceeding. The complainant has also failed to make manufacturer of Nokia mobile phone as party to the present proceedings. Under these circumstances there is no question of granting reimbursement or compensation or replacement of new phone. The only relief that could be granted to the complainant is that the opposite party shall give free service to the complainant without charging for labour charge in case the complainant hands over the phone set to the opposite party for service. Except this relief no other relief could be granted to the complainant. In the result I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
7. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to give free service to the mobile phone of the complainant Nokia 5800 and opposite party shall repair the set as per the undertaking and admission made in the defence version.
8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.
9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 15TH DAY OF APRIL 2011.
Order accordingly,
PRESIDENT
We concur the above findings.
MEMBER MEMBER
