IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 349/09 DATED 04.12.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Keerthan.M., S/o Mahesh, R/at D.No.4/11, 5th Main, S.B.M.Layout, Srirampura Second Stage, Mysore-570023.<br /> (By Sri. M.Mahadeva Swamy, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. A.S.Rajesh, Proprietor, <br /> Rajesh Shoppee, Mobile Sales and Service, No.112/1, 5th Cross, 9th Main, Saraswathipuram, <br /> Mysore-570009.<br /> 2. Revanna, Authorised Officer, Nokia Care, Revanna Nokia Care, No.854, R.K.Plaza, Opp. J.S.S.Law College, New Kantharaja Urs Road, Kuvempunagara, Mysore-570023.<br /> (By Sri. M.E.Somanna, Advocate for O.P.1 and<br /> B.Paneesh Kumar, Advocate for O.P.2)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 11.09.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 01.10.2009<br /> Date of order : 04.12.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 28 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint, seeking a directions to opposite parties to replace new mobile handset taking back the old one or in the alternative to pay the price of the handset Rs.7,500/- as well as damages and cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. It is alleged in the complaint that, on 11.05.2009 complainant purchased Nokia mobile handset No.6300-F-block I GM, IMEI: 353191034420109 for Rs.7,500/- from the first opposite party. After purchase, the handset did not work properly. He was unable to receive the calls. Complainant approached the first opposite party, which directed second opposite party to get it repaired. When complainant approached second opposite party, it repaired the handset, but again was not properly working. 5 -6 times, the complainant approached the second opposite party, but the handset is not properly working. Then, the complainant requested for replacement or to pay the cost. The opposite parties refused to comply the demand. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. First opposite party has admitted that, the complainant purchased the handset, but it is contended that, it is not an authorized dealer. Also, it is contended that, manufacturer is a necessary party. Other allegations made in the complaint are denied.<br /> <br /> 4. Second opposite party denying certain allegations made in the complaint, admitted that twice, the complainant had approached for repairs of the handset and handset was sent to the manufacturer and mother board was replaced. Also, it is contended that, old handset was scrapped by the company. The complainant after getting the replacement of the handset on 26.08.2009, never approached this opposite party. On these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 5. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. On behalf of first and second opposite parties, concerned persons have filed affidavits. For first opposite party, a document is produced. We have heard the arguments and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 6. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of both or either of the opposite parties and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. Point no. 1:- The complainant in the third paragraph of the complaint, as alleged that, he purchased the mobile handset from first opposite party bearing IMEI No.:353191034420109 and it is not working properly and hence, he has sought for replacement and in the alternative, payment of price of the handset. That fact is stated by the complainant in the affidavit and receipt issued by first opposite party is produced. It is definite and specific case of the complainant that, the said handset in spite of repairing by the second opposite party is not working and hence, replacement is sought.<br /> <br /> 9. The second opposite party in fifth paragraph of the version amongst other facts has stated that, “the old handset was scrapped by the company. After getting the replacement, the complainant on 26.05.2009 never approached second opposite party …….”. That fact is stated in the affidavit filed for the second opposite party in the middle of seventh paragraph. The document styled as replacement note, which is duly signed by the complainant, is on record at page 39 of the document. In this replacement note, the original unit IMEI No. is mentioned as 353191034420109 and exchanged unit IMEI No. is mentioned as 351973038983782. Hence, from the facts stated in the affidavit and this document, it is clear that in fact, the handset that the complainant had purchased from first opposite party has been replaced to new one with IMEI No.351973038983782. As noted above, specifically, the second opposite party has stated that, the original unit was scrapped by the manufacturer.<br /> <br /> <br /> 10. Hence, the allegations in the complaint that, the handset that the complainant had purchased from first opposite party is not working properly etc., is in correct. Because, at the cost of repetition as noted here before, the old handset has been replaced to new one. Said fact put forth by second opposite party is not at all denied or disputed by the complainant. Hence, under the circumstances, we have no reasons to disbelieve the case put forth by the second opposite party noted above regarding replacement of new handset to the old one.<br /> <br /> 11. The reliefs sought by the complainant is, replacement of new mobile handset to the old one. As noted in the earlier paragraph in fact, old handset has been replaced to new one. It is not at all the case of the complainant that, the said replaced new handset has problem etc., <br /> <br /> 12. For the reasons noted above, our finding on the point is in negative.<br /> <br /> <br /> 13. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. There is no order as to cost.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 4th December 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />