BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 9th day of May, 2007
C.C. No.180/2006
J. Ramakrishna, S/o J. Narayana Swamy,
H.No. 9/135, Krishna Nagar, Kurnool.
... COMPLAINANT
Verses
1) Proprietor, India Connect,
Shop No.5, S.V. Complex, Kurnool.
2) C. Zakeer, Nokia Care,
Anwar Times, Bhupal Complex, Shop No. 14, Kurnool.
3) Nokia Importers, Raddission Hotel Commercial Plaza,
NH 8, Mahalpur, New Delhi - 110 037.
... OPPOSITE PARTIES
This complaint coming on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri. P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool for Complainant and Sri Y. Sreenivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool for Opposite Party No. 2 Sri D. Naredra Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 1 called absent set exparte upon the perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:
ORDER
(As per Smt. C. Preethi, Member)
1. This consumer complaint of the Complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P. Act., 1986 seeking a direction on the Opposite Parties to replace the cell phone with new one or to pay the cost of the cell phone i.e., Rs. 20,249/- with 24% interest per annum from the date of purchase till realization, Rs. 20,000/- as compensation, cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the Complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that on 17-12-2005 the Complainant purchased a Nokia cell phone model No. 6680 for Rs. 20,249/- vide invoice NO. 240 from Opposite Party No.1 and a warranty card for one year was issued to the Complainant. After few days of its purchase the said cell phone started giving troubles and the same was handed over to Opposite Party No. 1 to rectify the defects but Opposite Party No.1 returned without rectifying the defects. Thereafter the Complainant addressed letter to Opposite Party No.2 and 3 and Opposite Party No.3 advised the Complainant to approach Opposite Party No.2 to rectify the defects. The Complainant there after approached Opposite Party No.2 and handed over the said cell phone for repair vide job card No. 2017 dated 16-01-2006 and Opposite Party No.2 negligently opened the cell phone and damaged the cover of the said cell phone and returned it without rectifying the defects with an acknowledgment stating that the said cell phone will be replaced on or before 23-01-2006. But so far the Opposite Parties did not replace the cell phone. Hence, the above conduct of Opposite Parties is amounting to deficiency of service and constrained the Complainant to resort to the forum for redressal.
3. In substantiation of his case, the Complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) Invoice dated 17-12-2005 issued by Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant for Rs. 20,199/- (2) Job card of Nokia Care Centre dated 20-12-2005 (3) Office copy letter dated nil of Complainant addressed to Opposite Party No.1, copy marked to Opposite Party No.3 along with postal receipts and acknowledgments (4) A note given by Zakeer (Opposite Party No.2) along with his visiting card (5) Limited warranty at page No. 122 of User’s Guide of Nokia 6680 and (6) Container containing Nokia cell phone 6680 along with CD and charger, besides to the Sworn Affidavit of the Complainant in reiteration of his complaint avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A6 for its appreciation in this case. The Complainant caused interrogatories to Opposite Party No.2 and suitabley replied to the interrogatories caused by Opposite Party No.2.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the Complainant the Opposite Party No.1 were made exparte and remained absent through out the case proceedings. The Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling separate written versions.
5. The written version of Opposite Party No.2 submits that it is only a servicing center and not liable for any loss or damages caused to the said cell phone and further submits that it has not damaged the said cell phone, at the time of giving the cell phone for repair and it was already damaged and it has noting to do with it and he is not responsible for damages and there is no deficiency of service on his part and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. The written version of Opposite Party No.3 denies the complaint avernments as not maintainable either in law or on facts and submits that the one year limited from the date of purchase is subject to terms and conditions as set out in the limited warranty. It is further submitted that when the Complainant approached Nokia Service Center along with his cell phone, it was immediately inspected and was found to have minor problem due misuse and it was rectified to the satisfaction of the Complainant. It further submits that one year limited warranty is not extended where mobile set had been misused / mishandled, as the Complaint badly misused the mobile set he is not entitled to any benefits under one year limited warranty and lastly submits that the mobile set of the Complainant is working satisfactorily and wrongly asking for its replacement without any basis and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. In substantiation of their case the Opposite Parties did not file any documents and Opposite Party No.2 filed his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his written version averments. The Opposite Party No.2 caused interrogatories to the Complainant and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the Complainant.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the Complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of Opposite Parties?
9. It is a simple case of the Complainant that he purchased a Nokia 6680 model for Rs 20,149/- from Opposite Party No.1 vide Ex.A1 dated 17-12-2005. After three days of its purchase i.e., on 20-12-2005 the said cell phone was giving troubles and was not functioning properly and the said cell phone was handed over to Nokia Care Centre (Opposite Party No.2) on the same day i.e., 20-12-2005 vide Ex.A2. The Ex.A2 is the job card No. In-039-201205-01 dated 20-12-2005 issued to the Complainant, on the complaints of Direct call button and ear volume very low, with the said complaints the Complainant handed over the said cell phone to Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.2 returned the said cell phone to the Complainant with a note vide Ex.A4 stating that while attending repairs the B-cover damage and further stated that it will be replaced on 23-01-2006. But to dismay of the Complainant it was not replaced on 23-01-2006 or there after and he got issued a personnel notice to Opposite Parties stating that the cell phone he purchased was not working properly and requested to replace with a working cell phone and to this letter, there was no reply from the Opposite Parties. From the above what appears is that there is carelessness on part of Opposite Parties with supine in difference in not attending to repairs to the said cell phone of the Complainant and not giving reply to the Complainant’s notice which is sufficient for the Complainant to suffer immenee embarrassment and mental tension agony for which the Opposite Parties has to compensate by paying Rs. 1,000/- as compensation.
10. The written version of Opposite Party No.3 submits that there was no damage done to the said cell phone at Nokia Care Center, but the Ex.A4 clearly says that while attending repairs B-cover was damaged and it will be replaced soon by 23-01-2006. The defects aroused in the said cell phone only during the limited warranty period vide Ex.B5 the said cell phone was covered under one year limited warranty period. Hence, it is for the Opposite Parties to rectify the defects as the defects around with in one year of its purchase. As the Opposite Parties failed to rectify the defects in the said cell phone, they have to pay its costs to the Complainant. Hence, there is deficiency of service to the Complainant is made out and hence there remains every bonafides in the Complainant’s case and there by his entitleness for relielf sought. As the Complainant is driven to the forum for redressal he is entitled to the costs of Rs. 500/- also.
11. In the result, the complaint is allowed direction the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to pay to the Complainant Rs. 20,149/- towards the cost of the cell phone after receipt of said defect phone (Ex.A6) from the Complainant along with Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 500/- as costs of this case within a month of receipt of this order. In default the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to pay the supra awarded amount with 9% interest from the date of default bill realization. Return the Ex.A6 to the Complainant for returning the same to Opposite Parties for compliance of order.
Dictated to the Computer Operator transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench on this the 09th day of May, 2007.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant: Nil For the Opposite Parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the Complainant:-
Ex.A1 Invoice dated 17-12-2005 issued by Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant for Rs. 20,199/-.
Ex.A2 Job card of Nokia Care Centre dated 20-12-2005.
Ex.A3 Office copy letter dated nil of Complainant addressed to Opposite Party No.1, copy marked to Opposite Party No.3 along with postal receipts and acknowledgments.
Ex.A4 A note given by Zakeer (Opposite Party No.2) along with his visiting card
Ex.A5 Limited warranty at page No. 122 of User’s Guide of Nokia 6680.
Ex.A6 Container containing Nokia cell phone 6680 along with CD and charger.
List of exhibits marked for the Opposite Parties:- NIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri. P. Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. Y. Sreenivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool.
3. Sri. D. Naredra Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
