BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT KHAMMAM Varadaiah Nagar, Opp CSI Church consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/78
Dr. S. Krishna Deepak, S/o. Dr. Ramalingeswarudu, C/o. Mamata General Hospital, Khammam.
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Romal's Mobiles and Electronics Shop No.40, Abids Shopping Complex, Abids, Hyderabad & others SR Communications, Nokia Care Centre, Z.P. Centre, Khammam. The Care Manager, Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., 4F, Tower-A&B, Cybergreen, D.L.F. Cyber City Sector, 25-A, Gurgaon - 122
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 31st day of May, 2010 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., LL.B., President 2. Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L., Member 3. Sri.R.Kiran Kumar, B.Sc., LL.B., Member C.C.No.78 of 2009 Between: Dr.S.Krishna Deepak, s/o.Dr.Ramalingeswarudu, age: 24 years, occu: House Surgeon, c/o.Mamatha General Hospital, Khammam. Complainant and 1. Romals Mobiles and Electronics Shop No.40, Abids Shopping Complex, Abids, Hyderabad. 2. SR Communications, Nokia Care Centre, Z.P.Centre, Khammam. 3. The Care Manager, Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., 4F, Tower-A & B, Cybergreen, D.L.F. Cyber City, Sector 25-A, Gurgaon 122 002, Haryana State. Opposite parties This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.N.Naveen Chaithanya, Advocate for complainant; opposite party No.1 appeared in person; Sri.B.Ramesh, Advocate for opposite party No.2; Sri.K.Ramesh, Advocate for opposite party No.3; upon perusing the material papers on record; this forum passed the following: ORDER (Per Sri.R.Kiran Kumar, Member) This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is working as House Surgeon in Mamatha General Hospital, Khammam. He had purchased Nokia Mobile Hand Set, vide Model No.N-81 from the opposite party No.1 for Rs.14,200/- through bill No.2600, dt.21-10-2008. The mobile purchased from opposite party No.1, the first few months i.e. from October, 2008 to May, 2009, it was alright except the flash was on, even after it was turned flash off. Because of busy schedule of complainant, he ignored the said problem, thereafter the handset key pad became hay wired and was automatically making calls and deleting vital information like messages and phone numbers, the complainant faced lot of agony as he lost worth of Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- talk time during the period, apart from the deletion of important information, he gave the handset to Nokia care center, S.R. Communications, Khammam, i.e. opposite party No.2 for attending the repair under warranty, the opposite party No.2 told him that it will take 15 to 20 days for them to repair the handset, the complainant gave them the handset and asked them to take care of two problems, first was faulty key pad and the second was camera flash, which even after turning of would still be on. The complainant received the handset from opposite party No.2 after 14 days, when he received the handset he observed that the panel over the screen came loose and also observed that the flash problem was not solved. The complainant is in need of phone, and as the technician said it would take another two days to set the flash problem he took the phone back. 2. After taking back the phone within few days, the complainant faced a new problem; the reception of signal on the handset was dismal, even near good signal area, due to which abrupt call disconnection leads to Rs.500/- to Rs.600/- worth of talk time loss, the complainants hospital faced a huge brunt, when he was on call, as at night when patient came in an emergency they could not contact the complainant, for this the complainant was punished by a fine of Rs.5,000/-, on that the complainant went back to the opposite party No.2 and gave them the list of complaints in a very clear and elaborative form and submitted the handset on 20-7-2009. For 19 days opposite party No.2 failed to hand over the set, on 8-8-2009 the complainant registered the complaint with Nokia Care Help Line and within two hours he got call from opposite party No.2, that his hand set has arrived, the complainant went back to recollect the handset and found that none of the complaints were solved and apart from that the service technician of opposite party No.2 said that he cannot help the complainant any further and if the complainant was not satisfied go and lodge a complaint in Consumer Court, as such the complainant approached the Forum for redressal. 3. On receipt of the notices, the opposite party No.1 appeared in person, opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared through their counsel and filed their counters. 4. In the counter of opposite party No.1, he admitted the transaction, i.e. purchasing of mobile handset model No.N-81, he delivered the mobile in good running condition without any defect, the complainant has used the same from 21-10-2008 to May, 2009 without any problem, as per the bill, for any service or warranty to contact Nokia care, as such opposite party No.1 is not responsible for the service, the complainant never approached opposite party No.1 for any problem whatsoever and the present complaint has been filed to gain undue advantage and to bring disrepute to the opposite party No.1, hence it is liable to be dismissed. 5. The opposite party No.2 in their counter they denied all the allegations made in para No.3, 4, 5 and 6 of the complaint and submitted that on 5-6-2009 the complainant had submitted his N-81 Nokia Mobile Handset with a problem of key pad and immediately the set was sent to IMC vide Rm No.36064 and duly after rectification of the problem, the set was handed over to the complainant on 15-6-2009 and again the complainant approached with another problem saying that the cell phone switching of and submitted his handset, on that opposite party No.2 forwarded the handset to IMC for the rectification of the problem with Rm.No.49802 and after repairs the mobile handset came back to opposite party No.2 and the complainant had taken the handset on 9-8-2009 and on two occasions alternate set was provided to the complainant for his convenience. After that again the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 saying that there is network problem, that instantly in order to provide speedy services the opposite party No.2 forwarded the handset to IMC with Rm No.56817 and IMC issued a swap for N-81 with N-82 (358984014062) with advanced services worth of Rs.22,000/- instead of the mobile handset worth of Rs.14,200/- and the complainant had received the new N-82 mobile handset on the same day itself, as the complainant alleged that three times he suffered the problem. Opposite party No.2 also submitted that the complainant using the handset, which was replaced in lieu of N-81with the advanced facilities of five mega pixels camera, xenon flash, supporting of 16 GB memory etc., instead of two mega pixel camera, led flash and supporting up to 4 GB and on the other hand continuing the case before the Forum by suppressing the material facts for wrongful gain, for that replacement note and xerox copy of the outward register is filed along with the counter, since the complaint is filed based on false, exaggerated and fabricated averments, since the handset was replaced with new mobile handset as per the limited liability to give the best services to the customer, before receiving the notices, i.e. on 31-8-2009 and no deficiency of services on their part. As such they prayed to dismiss the complaint. 6. The opposite party No.3 in their counter they admitted providing a limited warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase of the product and during this limited warranty period, the customer can get the defective products or parts thereof repaired/replaced and Nokias option from Nokia or its authorized service network, without any payment of charges. The limited warranty document is a part of the user manual and is inserted in every package of cell phone imported by opposite party No.3 and is a caveat to the buyer, that clearly provides in the event of any defect/problem in the handset of a Nokia customer, the handset will be repaired by the opposite party No.3 or its authorized service network, provided, firstly the handset is a genuine handset i.e. imported by the Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., secondly it suffers from a defect or a problem during limited warranty period and the said defect/problem is covered under the limited warranty offered by the opposite party No.3 i.e. defect in material and workmanship and thirdly, the customer does not violate/breach any of the terms and conditions as stated in the limited warranty document. And also submitted that the complainant has admitted in his complaint that he has used the handset, which shows that the handset when purchased it was in working condition, the complainant had pointed out different defects in the handset which shows that the handset has not been used by him properly, is only to maintain high reputation in the market that endeavor is being made by the opposite party No.3 through its network to repair the mobile set under all the circumstances without charging any fee for rectifying cause of such disturbances being precipitated by the complainant, the opposite party No.3 is not liable to either replace the mobile handset in question or to refund any amount to the complainant and in view of the above, prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs in favour of opposite party No.3. 7. On behalf of the complainant the following documents have been filed and marked as Exs.A.1 and A.2. Ex.A.1 - Cash bill issued by opposite party No.1, dt.21-10-2008 Ex.A.2 - Xerox copy of job sheet issued by opposite party No.2, dt.20-7-09. 8. On behalf of the opposite party No.2, the following documents have been filed and marked as Exs.B.1 to B.3. Ex.B.1 - Service job sheet, dt.11-8-2009 Ex.B.2 - Replacement note, dt. 12-8-2009 Ex.B.3 - Xerox copy of outward register, dt.31-8-2009 9. On behalf of opposite party No.3, counsel for opposite party No.3 filed written arguments. 10. Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the point that arose for consideration is, Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim? POINT: 11. In this case, the complainant purchased the Nokia Mobile handset from opposite party No.1 for an amount of Rs.14,200/- through bill No.2600, dated 21-1-2008. The first few months, it was alright and when it was giving troubles like automatically making calls, deleting vital information like messages and phone numbers, immediately the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 asked time for 15 to 20 days, for repair. The complainant received phone after 15 days from opposite party No.2, after taking back the phone within few days the complainant faced a new problem; the reception of signal on the handset was dismissal, then the complainant hand over the mobile to opposite party No.2 on 20-7-2009 by giving list of complaints in elaborative form, then after 15 days complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and observed that the complaints were not solved. Apart from that the service technician of opposite party No.2 said that if the complainant was not satisfied, go and lodge a complaint in consumer court, as such the complainant approached the Forum. But, as per the counter in para No.5 of opposite party No.2 they submitted that the complainant using the handset, which was replaced in lieu of N-82 with the advanced facilities instead of N-81 and on the other hand continuing the case before the Forum by suppressing the material facts for wrongful gain. For the counter of opposite party No.2, the complainant failed to file any rejoinder to deny the contents of replacing the mobile N-81 with N-82 and utilizing the same. From the above it is observed that the opposite parties had taken utmost care to safeguard their high reputation in the market, by repairing the handset from time to time under all the circumstances, without charging any fees for rectifying cause of such disturbances being precipitated by the complainant, opposite parties provided alternative handset to the complainant for his convenience at the time of forwarding the handset for repair and at last instantly in order to provide speedy service, the opposite party No.2 forward the handset to IMC with Rm No.56817 and IMC issued a swap for N-81 with N-82 on 31-8-2009. The complaint was filed on 20-8-2009 by the complainant in this forum. In view of the counter filed by opposite party No.2, after careful examining the material on record we found that the complainant failed to inform about using of N-82 handset, also observed that the opposite parties had given best services to the complainant. As such there is no deficiency of service and negligence on the part of opposite parties. In these circumstances, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this, the 31st day of May, 2010. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for complainant:-None- Witnesses examined for opposite parties:-None- Exhibits marked for complainant: Ex.A.1 - Cash bill issued by opposite party No.1, dt.21-10-2008 Ex.A.2 - Xerox copy of job sheet issued by opposite party No.2, dt.20-7-09. Exhibits marked for opposite party No.2: Ex.B.1 - Service job sheet, dt.11-8-2009 Ex.B.2 - Replacement note, dt. 12-8-2009 Ex.B.3 - Xerox copy of outward register, dt.31-8-2009 PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
