Date of Filing : 12-12-2008 Date of Order : 06-07-2009 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C.No.289/08 Dated this, the 6th day of July 2009. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Narayanan Kanathayar, S/o Narayanan Kanathayar, } Complainant Nambiarakal, Uppilikkai.Po, Kasaragod.Dt. 671314. (In person) 1. Proprietor, Profits Mobile Zone, M.K.A.M. Tower, Railway Station Road, Kanhangad. 671315. (Adv. George John Plamootil, Kanhangad) } Opposite parties 2. The Manager, Nokia Care, Rabi Tower Near Railway Station, Kannur. (Adv.B.P. Premarajan, Kannur) 3. Manager, Bright Point India Pvt.Ltd, Usnas Tower, Nokia Care, Pallimukku, Ernakulam. 682016. (Exparte) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT Shortly stated the case of the complainant Narayanan is that the Nokia Mobile phone he purchased from opposite party No.1 on 01-08-08 for Rs.1600/- became defective on 29-10-08 within the warranty period. On entrustment for repair the opposite party No.1 returned the mobile phone without repairing it on the ground that the mobile phone became damaged due to water logging and it is irreparable. His request for the replacement of the mobile phone was also not heeded by Opposite party No.1. Eventhough he took the mobile phone to opposite party No.2, a service center of Nokia Phone they also could not able to rectify the defects. Subsequently Opposite party No.2 sent the mobile to opposite party No.3 a higher grade service center of Nokia Phones they also returned the mobile phone to opposite party No.2 as irreparable. 2. According to complainant the mobile phone is not water logged and there is no chance for water logging. He is keeping the mobile in a plastic cover. The opposite parties are committing unfair trade practice by not repairing or replacing the mobile with a defect free one. Hence the complaint. 3. According to opposite party No.1 the complainant never approached them with any sort of complaint. As per term of the warranty there is no coverage for physical and water damages. Moreover, there is no warranty for the instrument of the complainant Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. Opposite party No.2 filed version. According to them they are an L2 grade service center of Nokia Phones. Since they could not rectify the defect of the mobile of the complainant they sent it to their L3 service center i.e opposite party No.3. But opposite party No 3 returned it back to them. Since it was not repairable. 5. Inspite receipt of notice issued by registered post, the opposite party No.3 did not turn up to file their version. Hence opposite party No.3 was set exparte. Complainant examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 marked. On the side of Opposite party No.2 Exts B1 to B3 marked. Both sides heard. 6. The contention of opposite party No.1 that the complainant never approached them with any sort of complaint is not acceptable. Usually any customer will first approach the trader or dealer from whom he has purchased the product. Therefore the case of the complainant that he entrusted the mobile phone on 30-10-08 and got it back unrepaired on 8-11-08 is appears to be true. 7. Opposite party No.2 has not produced any report about the alleged defects pointed out by them. In the absence of such authoritative reports from the technical personals who attended the defects of the mobile phone a mere endorsement that the mobile phone is water logged and irreparable is not acceptable. 8. The opposite party No.1 being the dealer of mobile phone has committed deficiency in service rendered to complainant. Opposite party No.1 has even shown the audacity to deny the entrustment of mobile phone for repair with them. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of Hyundai Motors India Ltd. V. Affiliated East West Press (P) Ltd & Anr reported in I (2008) CPJ 19 (NC) has held. “Unfortunately, we have not developed the tendency of accepting the defects or defaults. By some measure or means, the tendency to accept the defects or defaults is required to be encouraged. Otherwise, delay in disposal of such cases defeats the rights and the consumer gets frustrated. On occasions, litigation is dragged on for taking undue advantage of delay in disposal”. In view of the above we allow the complaint and opposite party No.1 is directed to refund Rs.1600/- to complainant that they collected towards the price of mobile phone. Opposite arties 2 & 3 are exonerated from liabilities. On receipt of the said amount complainant shall return the Nokia Mobile Phone in as is where in condition to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards the cost of these proceedings. Had the opposite party No.1 got a case that it is the manufacturer of the mobile phone who is liable to pay the said sum then opposite party No.1 can recover the said amount from the manufacturer through appropriate proceedings after paying the same to complainant. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which Rs.1600/- will carry interest @ 12% from the date of complaint till payment. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1 1-8-08 photocopy of invoice. B1.Service job sheet B2. Challan-cum-gate pass B3. Delivery Note/L2 Handset challan PW1. Narayanan Kanathayar. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
