Complaint presented on : 27.09.2013
Order pronounced on : 21.03.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L., : MEMBER II
MONDAY THE 21st DAY OF MARCH 2016
C.C.NO.185/2013
A.Sivaprasad,
S/O.P.Sankaran,
15/1, Sridevi Karumari Amman Nagar,
Selavayil, Kodungaiyur,
Chennai – 118.
..... Complainant
..Vs..
M /S. Joy Cell,
Rep. by its Service Manager,
Nokia Authorized Service Centre,
No.337/10, Paper Mills Road,
Perambur, Chennai – 600 011.
Date of complaint : 30.09.2013
Counsel for Complainant :M/S. A.Suresh
Counsel for Opposite party :R.Krishnan
O R D E R
BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:
The Complainant purchased a Nokia E7 mobile phone at Matrix for a consideration of Rs.26,500/- on 22.12.2011. He was using that mobile more than one year without any problem and in the month of March 2013 the phone suffered with problem of charging indication was not displayed and USB suffered connection problem. Hence he handed over the mobile phone for the above said two problems to the Opposite Party/service provider on 08.03.2013. He also paid a sum of Rs.2,500/- for rectification of the said defects. The mobile was delivered on 11.03.2013 after service. The Complainant on receiving the mobile requested the Opposite Party to insert the sim card and to operate the mobile. While doing so the device started auto restarting. The Opposite Party requested the Complainant to come after two days to receive the mobile phone. On 13.03.2013 at about 6.54p.m the Complainant visited the Opposite Party, he informed to him that the phone was dead and it cannot be used no longer and requested the Complainant to receive the service amount paid by him. The Complainant gave the mobile for the only problem is USB connector and not for any other problem. Further the Opposite Party forcibly obtained his signature in the service job sheet indicating as auto restarts while using the sim card in the repair fault column. The Opposite Party returned the mobile with a wrong repair fault due to his grave negligence and poor customer care. The Complainant sustained loss of mobile phone worth Rs.26,500/- and due to that he suffered with mental agony. Hence the Complainant issued the legal notice to the Opposite Party and the same was not replied. Therefore the Complainant filed this Complaint to direct the Opposite Party to pay the cost of the product, compensation and litigation expenses.
2.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
The Complainant submitted the mobile to this Opposite Party on 08.03.2013 for rectification of problem. The service engineer of the Opposite Party found the problem and the same was intimated to the Complainant on 09.03.2013 at 1.05p.m including charges and thereafter the Complainant came and paid a sum of Rs.2,500/- and further he wanted to update the software in his mobile. Since it was closing time and 10.03.2013 falls on Sunday after completing service the product was delivered on 11.03.2013. Again on 13.03.2013 the Complainant came and informed that the product got auto starting while inserting the sim. Since this problem arose after two days of rectification of USB problem, it was taken as new problem. The Opposite Party found that the phone was dead and the problem was not rectifiable and requested the Complainant to take back the mobile. A new job sheet was assigned on 13.03.2013. The Complainant created a nuisance in the office of the Opposite Party even though there was no mistake on his part and agreed to return the said sum of Rs.2,500/- and same was paid to him after handing over the mobile. This Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays this Forum to dismiss the Complaint.
3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?
4.POINT:1
It is an admitted fact that the Complainant purchased Nokia E7 mobile phone under Ex.A1 on 22.12.2011 and during the course of usage of the product it had a USB problem and hence he handed over the product for rectification to the Opposite Party and also paid a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards service charge and the USB problem was also attended by the Opposite Party.
5.According to the Complainant the Opposite Party after service, returned the mobile on 11.03.2013 and on receiving he requested the executive of the Opposite Party to insert the sim card and to operate the mobile and while doing so the product started auto restarting and hence the Opposite Party requested the Complainant to come after two days and the Complainant visited the Opposite Party service centre at about 6.64.p.m to receive the mobile found and the Opposite Party informed him that the phone is dead and the Complainant further would contend that he gave the product only as USB problem and due to negligence in service the product started auto restarting and therefore in Ex.A3 service job sheet the Complainant endorsed as “not satisfied” with service and therefore Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service.
6. The Opposite Party would reply that on 09.03.2013 when the product was delivered the Complainant wanted to update this software since it was late night and next day falls on Sunday the product was handed over on 11.03.2013 to the Complainant and after using the product for two days again the Complainant came on 13.03.2013. The Complainant came and handed over the product and on verification by the Opposite Party engineer, it was found that the product is in dead condition and the same was informed to the Complainant and he made hue and cry and this Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.
7. It is not in dispute that the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,500/- under Ex.A2, on 09.03.2013 for rectification of USB problem. The Opposite Party would contend he issued two job sheets one on 01.06.2013 and another on 13.03.2013. Job sheet no. is found in Ex.A2 is different from Ex.A3. In Ex.A3 the job sheet no.4617 is mentioned. It means as contended by the Opposite Party on 13.03.2013 the Complainant 2nd time handed over the mobile to the Opposite Party for service and that is why Ex.A3 fresh job sheet was entered on 13.03.2013 at 4.p.m. Therefore the fresh Ex.A3, 2nd job sheet establishes that already a job sheet was entered and after rectification of problem the product was handed over to the Complainant on 11.03.2013 as contended by the Opposite Party is accepted.
8. Since the product was delivered on 11.03.2013 and after using the same, 2nd time the Complainant entrusted the product under Ex.A3 with the Opposite Party for rectifying a new problem. The Opposite Party after the product was examined by his engineer immediately on the same day on 13.03.2013 informed to the Complainant that the product found dead. While receiving the product the Complainant returned in Ex.A3 job sheet. Therefore the case alleged by the Complainant against the Opposite Party is not accepted and in view foregoing discussions, it is held that the Opposite Party has not committed Deficiency in Service.
9.POINT:2
Since the Opposite Party has not committed Deficiency in Service the Complainant has not entitled for any relief in this Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 21st day of March 2016.
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 dated 22.12.2011 Bill for the purchase of Mobile
Ex.A2 dated 09.03.2013 Bill given by Opposite Party
Ex.A3 dated 13.03.2013 Service Job Sheet
Ex.A4 dated 27.04.2013 Legal Notice
Ex.A5 dated 30.04.2013 Acknowledgement Card
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
….. NIL …..
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
