Date of Filing:17.09.2008<br /> Date of Order:14.11.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2038 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Hrishikesh S. Rao<br /> S/o. Sripada Rao<br /> “Kavya”, 5th Main Road<br /> 7th Block, BSK 3rd Stage<br /> 4th Phase, Bangalore 560 085 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. S.V. Mobiles<br /> # 12, Ground Floor, Maruthi Arcade<br /> 100 ft. Ring Road, Kathriguppa Circle<br /> Banashankari 3rd Stage<br /> Bangalore 560 085<br /> <br /> 2. Bizi Communication<br /> # 183, Poojaya Arcade<br /> Opp. Roti Ghar, Gandhi Bazar<br /> Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560 004<br /> <br /> 3. Bright Point India Pvt. Ltd.<br /> # 21, White Hall, 1st Floor<br /> Greams Road, Thousand Lights<br /> Chennai 600 006 Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. <br /> The facts of the case are that complainant is a B.E. Graduate working in a private company. Opposite party No. 1 is a dealer of mobile phones. Complainant purchased a mobile phone for Rs.7,650/-. Opposite party No. 2 is authorized service center for Nokia mobile phones. Opposite party No. 3 is company who is manufacturing the Nokia mobiles. After purchase of the instrument complainant got several problems with the instrument. He approached opposite party No. 1 regarding defect in the instrument. Opposite party No. 1 directed the complainant to go service center and complainant approached second opposite party and handed over the handset to the second opposite party for service. Thereafter, complainant was informed that there was manufacturing defect in the instrument. Opposite party No. 2 suggested for exchange of instrument with the manufacturer. Job sheets are produced. Opposite party No. 2 undertook to send the phone to the manufacturer. The replaced phone was also not working and it was useless. Again complainant made complaint to opposite party No. 2. After surrendering both sets complainant visited office of opposite party No. 2 several times. They have not replaced the mobile or not paid the cost of mobile. A legal notice was issued calling upon the opposite parties to replace new mobile phone or to pay the cost of the instrument. Copy of legal notice produced. Inspite of notice the opposite parties have neither replaced the mobile set nor paid the cost of the instrument. Therefore, the complainant has filed the complaint. The complainant has prayed that opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile phone or pay the cost of instrument.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. The opposite parties have not appeared and contested the matter though served with notice.<br /> 3. I have gone through the complaint and documents. Matter was heard.<br /> 4. The complainant has produced the Invoice dated 03.06.2007. As per this document he has purchased Nokia 3230 for Rs 7,650/-. The complainant has produced service job sheet dated 26.03.2008 and he has produced exchange note of opposite party No. 3 dated 22.05.2008. The complainant has produced another service job sheet dated 09.06.2008 of opposite party No.2. Complainant has produced copy of legal notice. As per the documents produced by the complainant it is clear that complainant had purchased Nokia Mobile set for Rs. 7,650/- under Tax Invoice from opposite party No. 1. Since the set was not working properly and giving trouble he approached opposite party No. 1 for replacement. Opposite party No. 1 directed him to approach authorized service center and the set was handed over to the service centre. Inspite of service set did not work properly and again the complainant handed over the set to the service centre. The opposite party No. 3 had given standby set to the complainant. According to the complainant the said set also did not work properly. Therefore, again he went to the service centre and handed over standby mobile phone to the centre. The complainant requested for replacement of the mobile set or for refund of the amount, since, the mobile purchased by him is having manufacturing defect. The opposite parties did not take any steps for replacement of the set. Ultimately, the complainant got issued legal notice and requested for replacement of the set or refund of the amount. Even after issue of notice the opposite parties have not taken any corrective steps. The mobile phone was not replaced or amount not refunded. Therefore, the complainant was forced to file complaint. Taking into consideration all documents and allegations made in the complaint it is clear that the complainant who is a consumer has suffered lot. The opposite parties were not in a position to give mobile set which is defect free. Nokia is a very big manufacturing company of mobile phones. It should see that the products are free from defects. If the product is having any manufacturing defect the company should immediately replace the set with defect free set. The consumers are the backbone of all commercial activity. The grievances should be attended promptly with utmost courtesy. A customer is a most important visitor in the business premises. He is not dependent on the businessmen. On the other hand the businessmen are dependent on him. In this case the complainant has suffered lot on account of defective mobile set. He has wasted his time, money and energy in approaching opposite parties on and often for repairs of set. Therefore, deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties has been proved. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 5. The Complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to replace Nokia 3230 with defect free new handset of same model to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In case the replacement is not possible for any reason in that event the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 7,650/- to the complainant. <br /> 6. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings from the opposite parties.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />