BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 22^nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to replace his defective mobile handset with a new handset and in the event it is not possible to refund the money paid for purchasing the said handset and also for refund of the amount of AMC together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and the cost of the litigation, alleging deficiency.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

That on 06.03.2012 the complainant purchased a Nokia mobile handset, model Asha N-300 for Rs.6,377/- from the shop of OP and the said handset is covered by one year warranty.  That the complainant was making use of the said handset as per the instruction manual and on 10.07.2012 suddenly the key board as well as touch screen of the said handset stopped functioning and then the complainant went to the shop of OP-1 and requested him for replacement of the handset but OP-1 refused for the same and directed him to approach the Nokia authorized service center i.e., OP-2 for repairs.  OP-1 further stated that are engaged in sale of the handset only and they are not liable either for replacement or for repairs of the handset for any manufacturing defects etc.  That the complainant accordingly approached OP-2 and informed them about the defect in the handset and on 16.07.2012 OP-2 received the handset and stated that they require 15-20 days for rectifying defect and accordingly complainant handed over the set to OP-2 and after attending the repairs the same was returned.

That on 25.10.2012 again the same problem reoccurred and again the complainant approached OP-2 for repairs and OP-2 having received the handset returned it after rectifying the defect after 15-20 days.  That on 13.05.2013 again the complainant started facing problem with key board and touch screen and again he went to OP-2 and requested them for repairs at which time they told him that they have shut down the shop and asked him to approach some other Nokia authorized service centre and further stated him that the warranty and guaranty can be extended by paying Rs.520/-.  Accordingly the complainant paid Rs.520/- to OP-2 and valid receipt has been issued and the warranty period was extended for one year from 13.03.2013.

That the complainant approached OP-3, an authorized service centre of Nokia and after examining the handset OP-3 stated that there is seepage of oil inside the handset therefore it cannot be repaired under the warranty and the complainant has to pay separately for repairs.  The complainant did not agree for paying any amount separately since the handset was covered with warranty period.  When insisted by the complainant, OP-3 gave him a job sheet expressing their inability to rectify the defect free of cost.  Thereafter the complainant approached OP-4 and after examining the handset OP-4 refused to rectify the defect on the ground that the handset cannot be repaired in terms of the warranty as there is seepage of water on the touch screen.  When complainant insisted for a job sheet OP-4 issued a job sheet expressing their inability to repair the handset free of cost as per warranty due to water seepage tampering.  That the OPs despite the extension of warranty failed to attend to the repairs of the handset free of cost and illegally demanded money for the repairs which amounts to deficiency of service.  That the complainant is entitled for replacement of a new handset as the handset is covered by extended warranty and also refund of the AMC paid to OP-2.  That the complainant has been put to great inconvenience, hardship and mental agony for which OPs are liable to pay him compensation of Rs.10,000/- together with litigation cost.

3. In response to the notice issued OP-1 appeared through his advocate and filed his version contending in brief as under:

It is true that the complainant purchased a NOKIA make ASHA N-300 mobile handset manufactured by Nokia India Private Ltd., on 06.03.2012 from the outlet of OP-1.  That the OP-1 is only doing the role as a facilitator and OP-1 is permitted only to sell the mobile sets without opening the seal of the container box.  That the manufacturer M/s.Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., alone is responsible for manufacturing defects, if any, arising in the mobile set.  That the same is mentioned in the manual book as well as in the invoice given to the complainant at the time of sale of the mobile handset.  That this OP is not at all responsible or liable to any of the defects arising in the handset sold to the complainant.  That the complainant approached this OP with certain problem with the handset and though he is not liable in any way but with an intention to give better service asked the complainant to contact the authorized service center of the manufacturer and accordingly the complainant went away stating that he would approach the authorized service center of Nokia.  That the complainant has approached OP-2 for repairs of the handset.  Subsequently complainant has visited another authorized service center for repair of the handset.  That there is no any allegation of deficiency of service on the part of this OP.  That the present complaint against OP-1 is not maintainable as the warranty provided by the manufacturer is one year from the date of sale.  That the complainant has been filed subsequent to warranty period therefore OP-1 is not liable to answer the claim and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as barred by time given in the warranty.  That the complainant has not made the manufacturer as a party.  Therefore, the complaint is bad in law for non joinder of necessary party.  Therefore, OP-1 prays for dismissal of the complaint as against them with exemplary cost.

4. OPs.2, 4 and 5 despite service of notice failed to appear and were placed ex-parte.

5. OP-3 appeared in person and filed his version contending in brief as under:

That the complainant had given the handset in question for touch screen issue on 12.08.2013.  That the complainant was informed that the board of the handset was liquid logged.  That he was also informed that, the issue will not cover under warranty as per Nokia warranty terms.  That the complainant was informed that the problem can be fixed by replacing the touch screen which will cost Rs.1,650/.  That the complainant took back the handset telling that he would approach the Consumer Forum and recover the repair cost etc., and also compensation.  That this OP is ready to repair the said handset with discount in service charges at Rs.1,250/-.  That this OP is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as there is no deficiency of service on his part.  Therefore, OP-3 prays for dismissal of the complaint.

6. On the rival contention of both the parties, the points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        7. Perused sworn testimony of both parties, averments made in the complaint, version and written arguments.  We have also heard the oral arguments advanced by both sides.

8. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

9. It is not in dispute that, the complainant purchased a mobile handset Asha N-300 manufactured by NOKIA for a sum of Rs.6,377/- from the shop of OP-1 on 06.03.2012.  The complainant has produced invoice copy to substantiate the same.  It is also not in dispute that, the said handset is covered with one year warranty.  Accordingly the warranty expired on 05.03.2013.  The complainant did not produce the copy of the warranty issued at the time of purchasing the handset.  He also did not produce the extended warranty stated to have been issued by OP-2 on 13.03.2013.

10. After about 4 months from the date of purchase i.e., on 10.07.2012 the key board as well as the touch screen of the handset in question stopped functioning and immediately the complainant approached OP-1 from whom he purchased the said handset and OP-1 directed him to contact OP-2, the authorized service centre of Nokia.  Accordingly complainant approached OP-2 on 16.07.2012 and OP-2 attended the defect and returned the same to the complainant.  Again on 25.10.2012 the complainant has encountered the very same defect with the handset and again he went to OP-2 for rectification of the defect and OP-2 having received the said handset and have attended the defect and returned the same after 15-20 days.

11. The complainant claims that on 13.05.2013 i.e., after one year from the date of purchase of the handset i.e., after expiry of the warranty period the complainant faced very same problem with the handset and again he went to OP-2 for rectification of the said problem and which time OP-2 has stated him that their service center has been closed and expressed their inability to repair the handset.  However, OP-2 has collected a sum of Rs.520/- on 13.03.2013 and extended the warranty period for one more year.  Accordingly the warranty period has been extended one year from 13.03.2013.  Thereafter the complainant approached OP-3 another authorized service centre of Nokia for repair and after examining the mobile set OP-3 has informed the complainant that the problem with the handset is because of the liquid logging and the said problem is not covered under the extended warranty and refused to rectify the defect, free of cost and insisted that the complainant shall have to pay service charges as well as charges for the spare parts.  Complainant refused to pay any service charges etc., on the ground that the handset is covered by extended warranty.  However he has obtained a job sheet from the OP-3 for having visited him and for having examined handset.  From there the complainant is visited OP-4 another authorized service centre of Nokia for repairs of the handset.  OP-4 after examining the handset informed the complainant that the defect in the handset is not covered by the terms of the warranty and further informed the complainant that they would undertake the repairs only if complainant agrees to pay service charges as well as charges for the spare parts.  However complainant did not agree for the same and took back the handset however he had obtained a necessary job sheet from OP-4 also.

12. Complainant did not allege that the defect which was noticed in the handset was manufacturing defect.  The complainant has also not made the manufacturer of the handset as one of the party to the complaint.  Admittedly OP-1 is a dealer from whom the complainant has purchased the handset.  OP-1 categorically denied his liability either replace or cause repair of the handset.  According to the OP-1, as per the manual and as well as warranty card manufacturer alone is responsible for any manufacturing defect arising in the handset.  The complainant did not made any specific allegations against OP-1 as for as deficiency in service is concerned.  It is not that the handset sold by the OP-1 was defective on the date of sale.  The defect occurred in the handset more than three months from the date of sale.  Therefore, it cannot be said that, OP-1 has sold a defective mobile handset to the complainant.  Therefore, in the given circumstances of the case, OP-1 cannot be held responsible for the defect in the handset and he cannot be asked to compensate the complainant for the said defect in the handset.  Therefore, the case as against OP-1 is liable to be dismissed.

13. Similarly the complainant has not made any allegations against OP-5 either in the complaint or in his sworn statement.  We don’t understand as to why he has made OP-5 as one of the party to the present complaint.  Therefore, the complaint as against OP-5 is also liable to be dismissed.

14. OP-2 admittedly the authorized service centre of Nokia.  OP-2 has attended the repairs of the handset for the first two occasions i.e. 16.07.2012 and 25.10.2012.  The complainant has also produced job sheet issued by OP-2 for the above mentioned dates.  As the handset was covered with the warranty on 16.07.2012 as well as 25.10.2012, OP-2 has attended the repairs free of cost.

15. Subsequently on 13.05.2013 when the complainant again approached OP-2 for repair of the handset with a very same complaint, OP-2 has refused to attend the handset on the ground that they have closed their service centre.  However, it is pertinent to note that on the same day OP-2 by collecting a sum of Rs.520/- from complainant has extended warranty period.  Complainant has produced the receipt for Rs.520/- issued by OP-2 on 13.03.2013 extended the warranty for further period of one year.  OP-2 did not appear and denied the extension of the warranty provided to the said handset by collecting a sum of Rs.520/-.  When OP-2 has collected Rs.520/- for extending warranty, for one more year certainly he is liable to attend to the repairs of the handset.  The conduct of OP-2 in refusing to attend the repairs of the handset on the pretext that they have closed their service centre certainly amounts to deficiency of service.  If at all OP-2 has closed his service centre he ought not to have collected Rs.520/- and extended the warranty for further one more year.  OP-2 did not produce any material to show that they have closed their service centre and were unable to attend to the repairs.  OP-2 having collected Rs.520/- for extension of warranty period is certainly liable to attend to the repairs of the handset.  Though OP-2 had informed the complainant that they have closed their service centre but the service job sheet dated 13^th May 2013 issued by them shows that their service centre was very well functioning on the said date.  From the copy of the service job sheet dated 13^th May 2013 produced by the complainant, it is clear that, OP-2 has collected the handset on 13.05.2013 for repairs but for the reasons best known to him has failed to attend to the repairs and returned the handset without attending the repairs.  The conduct of OP-2 in refusing to attend to the repairs amounts to deficiency of service as already stated above.

16. Similarly OP-3 is not justified in refusing to attend to the repairs of the handset on the ground that, the same is oil logged.  OP-3 except filing the version did not substantiate his contention by tendering evidence.  OP-3 did not produce any material to believe that he detected oil/liquid in the handset.  Complainant specifically refused that the handset was either water/oil logged.  OP-3 did not produce any material to show that the handset was oil logged when tendered for repairs.  Therefore, the conduct of OP-3 in refusing to attend to the repairs of the handset on the pretext of oil logging, amounts to deficiency of service. 

17. Similarly the conduct of OP-4 in refusing to attend to the repairs on the pretext of oil/water logging also amounts to deficiency of service.  OP-4 did not appear and contest the claim of the complainant.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that, the conduct of OP-4 in refusing to attend the repairs amounts to deficiency of service.

18. When handset in question was covered with extended warranty, OPs.2 to 4 who are being the authorized service centre of Nokia were liable to attend to the repairs of the said handset free of cost.  They were not at all justified in demanding the complainant to pay money for servicing as well as spares.  There is no justification on the part of OPs-2 to 4 in refusing to repair the handset in question.  The conduct of OPs.2 to 4 must have put the complainant to great hardship and inconvenience as he was unable to make use of the said handset subsequent to 13.03.2013.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that OPs.2 to 4 are jointly and severally return Rs.520/- to the complainant which OP-2 has received for extending the warranty period for one year.  However, OPs.2 to 4 shall have to be directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant for deficiency of service together with litigation cost of    Rs.5,000/.  Accordingly point No.1 is answered.      

 19. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency. 

20. (Point No.2) - In the result, we proceed to pass the following:                 

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  OP-2 Sanman Mobiles (Authorized service centre for Nokia), OP-3 Wise Solutions (Nokia authorized service centre) & OP-4 Care Tele Services (Nokia authorized service centre) are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.520/- to the complainant together with compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

Complaint against OPs.1 & 5 is dismissed.

  OPs shall comply the said order within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 22^nd day of November 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 09.04.2014.

1. Sri.Madhu.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party-1 dated 20.02.2014.

1. Smt.Prathima.  

Documents produced by the Opposite Party/s - Nil

  MEMBER                           MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

   Vln*