DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.503 of 11-11-2011
Decided on 14-02-2012
Suresh Kumar, aged about 28 years, son of Sh. Bhoop Singh son of Sh. Rupa Ram,
Resident of Basti No.1, Bir Talab, Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus
Nokia Service Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.IT-C6, Sebiz Square (Building) 3rd and 4th Floor
IT Park, Sector 67, Mohali, Chandigarh, through its Prop./ Incharge/Partner/M.D./D.M.
Shiv Bhole Telecom, Street No.6, Opp. Imperial Motors, Nai Basti, Bathinda, through
its Prop./Incharge/Partner.
Nokia Care Centre i.e. Hind Tel Communication, Bibiwala Road, Near Krishna
Continental, Bathinda, through its Prop./Incharge/Partner.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh. Manjit Dhamija, counsel for the complainant
For Opposite parties: Sh. R.D.Goyal, counsel for opposite party No.2
Sh. Pardeep Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.3
Opposite party No.1 exparte
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Mobile Set make Nokia C203, vide IMEI No.358266047004481 and 3582660 47004499 on 31.08.2011 for a sum of Rs.4,800/- vide receipt/bill No.3230 from the opposite party No.2. The complainant has alleged that after 15 days from the date of its purchase, it stopped working as there was defect in the said mobile handset, it did not start on pressing the 'ON' button. The complainant complained to the opposite party Nos.2&3. The opposite party No.3 checked the mobile of the complainant and kept the same in their custody and told that the said mobile set is out of warranty, asked to pay Rs.1,250/- for repairing the same and further asked the complainant to come to their shop after few days. When, the complainant again visited the shop of the opposite party No.3, he was again told that the defect was not cured and asked him to come after some time. The complainant has further alleged that approximately one month has lapsed but the problem has not been cured. On 01.10.2011, the complainant again went to the shop of the opposite party No.3 but it asked the complainant to come on 15.10.2011, on 15.10.2011, he was informed by the opposite party No.3 that there was some manufacturing defect in the said mobile handset and the same was out of warranty as such an amount of Rs.3,000/- will be charged for curing the said mobile handset. Thereafter, the complainant has been approaching the opposite party Nos.2&3 and requested them to replace the said mobile set with new one or to refund the amount of the said mobile handset as the same was within warranty but to no effect. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to replace the mobile handset in question with new one or to refund the price of the said mobile handset i.e. Rs.4,800/- along with cost and compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their separate written statements. The opposite party No.2 has admitted that the complainant purchased the above said mobile handset from the opposite party No.2 on 31.08.2011 and the bill was issued to him by them. At the time of selling the said mobile handset, it was made clear to the complainant that the warranty is given by the company and if any defect occurs in the mobile handset, it will be repaired by the opposite party No.3 and the opposite party No.2 will not be responsible for the same. The opposite party No.2 has pleaded that the complainant himself contacted the opposite party No.3 directly for checking the mobile handset in question. The complainant has not approached the opposite party No.2 till today regarding any defect in the mobile handset in question.
The opposite party No.3 admitted that the complainant has approached it on 16.09.2011 for a complaint in the said mobile handset. The opposite party No.3 conveyed the complainant that the defect is curable and the same will be rectified after charging Rs.1,250/- but the complainant was not ready for repair, he was adamant for the replacement of the said mobile handset with new one and left the said set at the shop of the opposite party No.3. There is no manufacturing defect in the said mobile handset and the complainant has not approached the opposite party No.3 to collect the same till date.
3. The opposite party No.1 despite service of summons/notice, has failed to appear before this Forum. Hence, exparte proceedings are taken against opposite party No.1.
4. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
5. Arguments heard. Record along with written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
6. The mobile handset of the complainant purchased by him vide bill No.3230 for Rs.4,800/- vide Ex.C-2, stopped working after 15 days of its purchase as there was some defect in the said mobile handset and did not start after pressing the 'ON' button. The opposite party No.3 after checking the said mobile handset of the complainant, told him that it was out of warranty and will charge Rs.1,250/- for repairing the same and asked the complainant to approach after few days. When, the complainant approached after few days, he was told by the opposite party No.3 that the defect is not cured and again asked him to come after few days. The complainant visited again but the problem has not been rectified, even after one month the problem remained intact. On 01.10.2011, the complainant again visited the shop of the opposite party No.3 who asked him to come on 15.10.2011, the complainant was again conveyed by the opposite party No.3 that there was some manufacturing defect in the said mobile handset and the same is out of warranty and the opposite party No.3 asked the complainant to pay Rs.3,000/- for rectifying the defect in the mobile handset. The complainant requested the opposite party No.3 to replace the said mobile handset with new one or to refund the amount of mobile handset as the same is within warranty but to no avail.
7. The opposite party No.2 has submitted that the warranty is given by the company and the complainant has not visited them till date regarding any defect in the said mobile handset.
8. The opposite party No.3 has submitted that the complainant had approached the opposite party No.3 on 16.09.2011, it told the complainant that the defect is curable and they will charge Rs.1,250/- but the complainant did not listen to the request of the opposite party No.3 and remained adamant for replacement of the said mobile handset with new one and left the same in its shop.
9. The complainant had purchased the above said mobile handset on 31.08.2011 vide Ex.C-2. The warranty of one year was given on the said mobile handset. The very next month i.e. after purchase of 15 days i.e. on 16.09.2011, there was some problem with regard to start as the said mobile handset did not start on pressing the 'ON' button. The opposite party No.2 issued a job sheet dated 16.09.2011 Ex.C-3 in which they demanded Rs.1,250/- from the complainant and wrote that there is no job warranty.
10. It is very ironical that when the mobile handset in question is within warranty, why the opposite parties asked for repair charges to the tune of Rs.1,250/- from the complainant for rectifying the defect, the defect has occurred only after 15 days of its purchase. The opposite parties have failed to explain or to produce any such document that the said mobile handset was not within warranty.
11. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party No.3 told the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the said mobile handset and asked for Rs.3,000/- for repair of the said mobile handset, there is no evidence placed on file that the opposite party No.3 asked for Rs.3,000/- from the complainant. Further, this is admitted by the opposite party No.3 that it has demanded Rs.1,250/- for removing the defect in the said mobile handset.
12. The opposite party No.3 pleaded that the defect is curable and there is no manufacturing defect in the said mobile handset. If the defect was curable, it should have been cured by the opposite party No.3 without charging even a single penny, as there is no plea on the part of the opposite party No.3 that the handset was without warranty but a perusal of Job Sheet Ex.C-3 shows, the opposite party No.3 has ticked on the option of 'no job warranty', there is no comment or detail given that why the set was out of warranty. The opposite party No.3 is an authorized service centre of the opposite party No.1 as it has nowhere pleaded in their reply that it is not an authorized service centre of the opposite party No.1. Thus if the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 regarding any defect in his mobile handset. It was the duty of the opposite party No.3 to rectify the defect without charging any amount. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.3. The defect has occurred within 15 days of the purchase of the mobile handset in question, is sufficient to show that there is some manufacturing defect in the said handset. The demand of Rs.1,250/- from the complainant also confirms the same and the demand for repair charges, is baseless.
13. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs.2,000/- as cost against the opposite party Nos.1&3 and dismissed qua opposite party No.2. The opposite party Nos.1&3 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.4,800/- (i.e. price of the mobile handset) to the complainant. Compliance of this order be done by the opposite party Nos.1&3 jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of failure, the interest @ 9% p.a. will yield on the amount of Rs.4,800/- till realization.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum
14-02-2012
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
