Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/567/2012

THE CARE MANAGER, NOKIA INDIA PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SEEMA PARVEEN - Opp.Party(s)

K. RAVI KUMAR

21 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE        Thiru. A.K.ANNAMALAI            PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                        Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                    MEMBER

 

F.A.NO. 567/2012

(Against order in  C.C. No. 190/2012

DCDRF, Chennai(North), Date  12.10.2011)

 

DATED THIS THE 21^st  DAY OF JANUARY 2015

1.The Care Manager,

Nokia India Pvt Ltd

Tower A SP Infocity

Industrial Plot No   243

Udyog Vihar Phase I

Dundahera Gurgaon

(Haryana)                                                 1^st Appellant/ 2^nd opp.party

 

2. Universal Telecommunications India Ltd,

No.42, Barracks Road,

Chennai 600 007                                       2^nd Appellant/1^st opp.party

 

                                                Vs

Seema @ Seema Praveen

D/o, Eathshamuddin

No.772, Sheik Mohiddin Subadhar Street,

Ottery

Chennai                                                 ..Respondent/ complainant

 

Counsel for Appellants/opp.parties 1&2   :   M/s K.Ravikumar

Counsel for Respondent/complainant      :   M/s K.Marimuthu

 

The  1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are the Appellants. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/opposite parties   filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC.No. 190/2012, dated 12.10.2011. 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 23.12.2014 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order. 

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.       The  1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are the Appellants.  

 

2.      The complainant purchased a Nokia mobile handset from the 1st opposite party on 24.2.2010 which is manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party and as the mobile phone become repaired and defective within few days it was handed over to 1^st opposite party on 9.8.2010 for repair and inspite of repeated requests for number of days, it was not returned either repaired and un-repaired and thereby after issuing legal notice, the complaint came to be filed claiming compensation and cost of the mobile. The 1^st opposite party remained exparte, before the District Forum and the 2^nd opposite party denied the allegations and contended that the complainant has not proved the defect with any documents to prove the genuineness and thereby praying for dismissal of the complaint.
3.      After an enquiry, on the basis of materials, District Forum allowed the complaint by directing the opposite parties 1 and 2, to pay the sum of Rs.4000/- towards the cost of the cell with interest at 9% p.a from 9.8.2010 and also directed the 1^st opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and for unfair trade practice and also directed the 2^nd opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and directed both the parties to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as cost.
4.      Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite parties 1 and 2 have  come forward with this appeal contending that the District Forum has not given any proper reasons to justify the huge compensation ordered and the allegations of unfair trade practice was not substantiated thereby the order of the District Forum to be set aside.
5.       We have heard both side arguments and carefully considered the written submissions and other materials in this regard. It is admitted case of both side, that the complainant purchased a mobile phone under Ex.A.1 from 1^st opposite party and the manufacturer being 2^nd opposite party which was given for repair for certain defects in the keypad numbering not functioning as per Ex.A.2, within the warranty period as mentioned in Ex.A.2, it was not returned and either repaired or un-repaired in spite of the repeated requests made by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party. Further the complainant issued legal notice to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties as per Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.5 and it was received by 1^st opposite party under Ex.A.4 and A.6 and returned from 2^nd opposite party under Ex.A.7. In those circumstances, when the 1^st opposite party after receiving the court notice, not participated in the proceeding before the District Forum was made to set exparte and come forward with the 2^nd opposite party as Appellant in this appeal. While considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is proved by the complainant that the mobile was handed over for repairs  to the 1^st opposite party being the authorized service centre of 2^nd opposite party which was not denied also it was not disputed that the mobile phone was either repaired or returned to the complainant and thereby deficiency was established against the 1^st opposite party and being the manufacturer having 1^st opposite party as service authority, 2^nd opposite party also liable vicariously  and as for as the award is concerned, the District Forum directed the 1^st opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay 2^nd opposite party a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards unfair  trade practice by the 1^st opposite party alone thereby in all  Rs.35,000/- as compensation to be paid. Apart from the sum of Rs.5000/-  as cost, and in our view these compensation amounts are not proportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case as the complainant purchased mobile only for Rs.4000/- having minor defect of certain key buttons (7,8,9) were not functioning which was given for repair was not repaired by the 1^st opposite party and except being the manufacturer of the mobile phone, the 2^nd opposite party has no role to play in the service to be done by the 1^st opposite party under warranty and thereby we are of the view that we could consider the justifiable quantum of compensation to be awarded as against the total compensation of Rs.35,000/- and as well as the cost of Rs.5000/- and to that extent alone, we are of the view that the appeal could be allowed in part and thereby and accordingly,

             In the result,  the appeal is allowed in part and  the order of the District Forum directing the 1^st opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- and the 2^nd opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and directing the 1^st opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for unfair trade practice and directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost to the complainant are hereby set aside. Instead the following directions are given :-

 

i).  The order of the District Forum directing  the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- towards cost of the mobile phone with interest at 9% p.a. from 9.8.2010 till date of payment is hereby confirmed.

ii)      The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay the sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant.

iii)     The opposite parties 1 and 2  are jointly and severally directed to pay only a sum  of Rs. 3000/- as cost. The above direction shall be complied by the within six weeks from the date of this order.

 

3. No order as to costs in this appeal. 

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                             A.K.ANNAMALAI       

 MEMBER                                               PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER