<br /> Date of Filing:15.02.2008<br /> Date of Order: 17.06.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 437 OF 2008 <br /> <br /> <br /> Ravindra,<br /> S/o B. Ramu,<br /> Door No.11, 5th Main, <br /> KHN Block, Ganganagar,<br /> Bangalore-560 032. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. NOKIA,<br /> Infantry Road,<br /> Shivajiagar, Bangalore.<br /> <br /> 2. NOKIA,<br /> Shilak INC,<br /> No.7, I Floor, P & T Colony,<br /> 80 feet Road,<br /> R.T. Nagar, Bangalore-560 032.<br /> <br /> 3. M/s Sangeetha,<br /> No.366, Matadahalli,<br /> R.T. Nagar Main Road,<br /> Bangalore560 032. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stating that he is working in Airforce Department. He had purchased Nokia mobile handset No.6270 from opposite party No.3 on 23/1/2007 for Rs.15,250/-. Opposite parties have given one year warranty. In the month of July-2007 there was display problem in the mobile set. Complainant took mobile to opposite party No.1 and same was replaced with another mobile set. The replaced mobile also not working properly, it had also display problem. The opposite party No.2 undertake to repair the mobile and collected Rs. 350/- from the complainant. Opposite parties have given damaged set to the complainant. Complainant approached the opposite parties several times, but they have not bothered to respond to the request of the complainant. Legal notice was issued. After repeated request the mobile handset was not replaced. Hence, the complainant constrained to file the complaint for deficiency of service. <br /> <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Vakalath on behalf of the opposite party No.2 has been filed. Opposite party No.1 and 3 remained absent in spite of service of notice. Defence version not filed. <br /> 3. Complainant has filed affidavit evidence. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. The point for consideration is:- <br /> Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. I have gone through the complaint, affidavit evidence and documents. The complainant has produced receipt of opposite party No.3. As per this receipt it is clear that he has purchased Nokia mobile handset from opposite party No.3 for Rs.15,250/- on 23/1/2007. After purchasing the mobile the set was not working properly and it has some defective. Therefore, he handed over the mobile set to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 replaced the mobile set with another set on 27/7/2007. This fact is evidenced by delivery challan. The complainant has stated that even after replacement some problem continued and set was not working properly, there was display problem. Opposite party No.2 undertaken repair work and collected Rs.350/-. Even after that repair also, the problem not solved. Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice. Copy of legal notice produced. The case made out by the complainant has gone unchallenged. Nokia Company being a very big and popular company it should see that, no defective sets are sold to the customers. Consumer Protection Act is enacted to provide better protection to the customers. Protection of the consumers is the need of the hour. The handset purchased by the complainant was having manufacturing defect. He surrendered the mobile set to opposite party No.1 and the set was replaced on 27/7/2007 by opposite party No.1. Even replaced set was also not working properly, it had same problem. Therefore, the complainant requested for replacement and there was no proper response and he got issued legal notice. Even after notice also the complainant has not got the relief. The opposite parties have not replaced the defective mobile with defect free mobile set. The complainant has sought compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, harassment, inconvenience caused to him. The compensation sought by the complainant is unreasonable and unjustified. The question of granting that much of compensation is unwarranted. At the most, the complainant is entitled for refund of the price amount of the handset. The complainant has to surrender mobile set to the opposite parties and get back the refund. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party No.1 and 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay refund Rs. 15,250/- to the complainant (the price amount of the mobile set). The complainant has to surrender the mobile handset to the opposite party No.1 and 3 after receiving the amount. The opposite party No.1 and 3 shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order. The amount be sent directly to the complainant by way of DD or cheque with intimation to this Forum.<br /> <br /> <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2008.<br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />