By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant purchased a Nokia Mobile Hand Set on 14.08.2008 on payment of Rs.7,300/- in the model No.6233. The hand set had an offer of one year warranty, in warranty period the set was in complaint of ring tone issue and low incoming audio. The 1^st Opposite Party was given the phone on 03.02.2009 to get it repaired. The 1^st Opposite Party had also given a service job sheet to the Complainant with a specification of the complaint noted. It was informed to the Complainant that the hand set would be given back on 18.2.2009. Even after the informed time the Complainant approached the 1^st Opposite Party for the return of the hand set instead of giving back the hand set after repair, the 1^st Opposite Party opted one or other reason for not returning the set. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the hand set and the 1^st Opposite Party is the authorised service centre. The Complainant spent Rs. 2,500/- towards the traveling expenses apart from other losses. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to give back the Complainant Rs. 7,300/-. The purchase price of the hand set along with interest at the rate of 12% from 03.02.2009 till realisation of the same. The Complainant also to be compensated with Rs.25,000/- towards the mental agony and other hardship along with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. The 1^st Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The hand set for repair was received by the 1^st Opposite Party. The Complaint of the hand set was in warranty period and for detail examination it was kept in by the 1^st Opposite Party. On examination it was noted that the damages of the hand set was due to fall in water or because of water entered in to the printed circute. The Complainant was informed of the defects over phone and those things were beyond the warranty coverage. It was possible for the 1^st Opposite Party only on thorough examination the reason for the fault. The allegation of the Complainant was that the 1^st Opposite Party was approached in several occasions to get back the hand set are nothing but false. The complaint of the mobile hand set resulted due to the mishandling and careless use of the set and the repair which needed for the same is beyond the risk of warranty coverage. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

3. The 2^nd Opposite Party is declared exparte in this case.

4. The points in consideration:-

1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit of the Complainant and 1^st Opposite Party. Ext.A1, A2, B1 and the hand set MO1 are the documents considered in this case.

6. The case of the Complainant is that the hand set purchased for Rs.7,300/- had a defect in subsequent use which was in warranty period. The hand set given for repair at the service centre was not given back after repair. According to the 1^st Opposite Party the Complainant of the hand set is due to fall in water which is beyond the risk of warranty. The hand set which was given for repair was on 03.02.2009 and the date and time out as mentioned in the job sheet is 18.02.2009. The job sheet signed by ASC Engineer consists of the repair fault and the column that are to be noted by the complaint. In the job sheet the fault to be repaired is written “Alert Ring Tone” low incoming audio. Ext.B1 is the job sheet produced by the 1^st Opposite Party which is the carbon copy of the Ext.A2. The job sheet to the Complainant is signed by both the Complainant and ASC Engineer. The liquid damages stated in Ext.B1 is subsequently returned with the inscription of liquid damage is not seen original of the job sheet given to the Complainant. The 2^nd Opposite Party is an exparte who is the manufacture of the hand set. The hand set was in custody of the 1^st Opposite Party the service centre of the Nokia Hand set. The contention of the 1^st Opposite Party that the hand set is having faulty of liquid damages due to falling water is not seen specified in the job sheet to the Complainant. According to the 1^st Opposite Party only on thorough examination of the hand set the faulty of the hand could have been noted. The contention of the Opposite Party is not substantially brought out in evidence and cannot be relied on. From the inferences above it is considered that the hand set given to the 1^st Opposite Party for repair is having defect which was to be repaired by the service centre of the 2^nd Opposite Party. The cost necessary for the substitution of the board is not brought out in evidence. The Opposite Parties are responsible to refund the price of the hand set taking back the hand set which is deposited here.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to refund jointly and severally Rs.7,300/- (Rupees Seven thousand Three hundred only) the purchase price of the hand set to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The 1^st Opposite Party is also directed to take back the deposited hand set. The Complainant is also entitled for Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) towards the cost. This is to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 15^th October 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

Nil.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Bill. dt:14.08.2008.

A2. Service Job sheet.

MO1. Mobile.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

B1. Copy of Service Job Sheet.