BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 28th March 2014
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.15/2013
(Admitted on 19.1.2013)
Bhavanishankar,
So Late Shivarama Naik,
Aged about 39 years,
Residing at Gorigudde Neharu Road,
Angaramajalu, Jappinamogaru,
Post Kankanady,
Mangalore Taluk D.K. 575 002. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for Complainant: Sri. Thimmayya P.)
VERSUS
1. Span Telecom,
Pailand Plaza,
Falnir Road,
Mangalore 575 002.
2. Metro Telecom,
Marz Chambers,
Falnir Road,
Mangalore, D.K. 575 001. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Opposite Party No.1 :Exparte)
(Advocate for Opposite Party No.2: Sri Raghavendra Rao)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
I. 1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging defect in goods against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant stated that, he has purchased Nokia C2-03 from the Opposite Party No.1 on 29.9.2011 by paying Rs.4,600/- and Opposite Party No.1 assured that the handset is one year warranty and issued warranty card as per Ex.C2. It is stated that, on 17.7.2012 the mobile handset started to give trouble as it is going to switch off automatically and complainant has approached Opposite Party No.1 and told that the phone is not working and Opposite party No.1 adviced to approach the Opposite Party No.2 and complainant in turn approached the Opposite Party No.2. It is stated that the opposite party No.2 collected Rs.337/- towards the repair charges and alleged that the mobile is going to switched off due to water damages. The complainant stated that he is very shocked to hear that it is sustained water damages and complainant refused to pay the bill amount and Opposite Party No.1 not returned the mobile and thereafter left with no other option paid Rs.337/-. It is stated that, the Opposite party No.2 intentionally collected the amount and in the month of August again the mobile handset started to give trouble as the touch penal was dead and volume penal was not working and once again approached the Opposite Party No.2 collected the defective handset and issued job card and Opposite party No.2 stated that since there is no warranty the complainant has to pay Rs. 1,300/-, but the complainant contended that the handset sold by the Opposite party is a defective and feeling aggrieved by the above, the Complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to replace the mobile sold to the complainant or refund the amount of Rs.4,600/- along with 15% interest from 29.9.2011 till payment to the complainant along with compensation and costs of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 by R.P.A.D. Opposite Party No.1 inspite of receiving version notice neither appeared nor contested the case before this FORA. Hence, we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.1. The acknowledgement marked as Court Doc. No.1. Opposite Party No.2 appeared through their counsel filed version stated that the complainant brought the handset on 16.7.2012 which was not switching on and was total off and liquid damage and complainant gave approval for repair and the set was examined by well trained experienced service engineer and verifying the same and serviced the handset and charged Rs.337/- on non-warranty basis. Once again the handset was brought for repair on 31.8.2012, since it is a liquid log the complainant will not get any warranty and it is specifically mentioned in the user manual and denied the deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, one Sri Bhavanishankar (CW1) – Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced Ex C1 to C9. On behalf of Opposite Parties One Mr.Lohit, (RW-1) Service Technician of Opposite Party No.2 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced Ex.R1 and R2.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
- Whether the Complainant proves the Nokia C2-03 purchased on 29.9.2011 from the opposite parties suffers from any defect?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the complainant and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Negative.
Point No.(ii) to (iv): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. POINT NO. (i):
In the instant case, the facts which are admitted is that the complainant had purchased Nokia C2-03 handset from the Opposite Party No.1 on 29.9.2011 and paid Rs.4,600/- as per Ex.C1. The Opposite party No.1 is the dealer and Opposite Party No.2 is the authorized service center in Mangalore.
The allegations of the complainant is that the handset purchased by him on the above said date had some defects. On 17.7.2012 i.e. within the warranty period and approached the service center and service center in turn serviced the mobile handset and charged Rs.337/-, even though there is a warranty to the handset. And left with no other option the complainant paid above said amount. But once again in the month of August the handset again had some problem and service center demanded Rs.1,300/-, but the complainant contended that the handset sold by the Opposite party No.1 has some defect and it cannot be usable and thereby he has suffered and hence came up with this complaint.
On perusal of the entire records, we are of the opinion that, in case of manufacturing defect in the handset/goods of any kind the manufacturer of the said goods is the necessary party to the proceedings. Hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, the complaint is closed and Complainant is at liberty to add manufacturer is a necessary party to the proceedings by filing fresh complaint. No order as to cost. Since the point No.(i) is negative the rest of the points does not arise.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is closed. No order as to cost.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 6 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of March 2014)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Sri. Bhavanishankar – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 –29.9.2011: Original bill issued by the O.P.No.1.
Ex C2 – 29.9.2011: Original guarantee card issued by O.P.No.1.
Ex C3 – 17.7.2012: Original bill issued by the O.P.No.2.
Ex C4 – 31.8.2012: Notarized copy of the service job card issued by O.P.No.2.
Ex C5 – 8.9.2012: Office copy of the legal notice.
Ex C6 & C7 – Postal acknowledgments(2)
Ex C8 – Unserved Postal envelope.
Ex C9 –24.9.2012 : Reply given by O.P.No.2 to the complainant.
COURT DOCUMENT:
DOC.NO.1: Postal Acknowledgment.
M.O. NO.1: Mobile Handset.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW-1: Mr.Lohit – Service Technician of O.P.No.2
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex R1: Notarized copy of certificate of Competency.
Ex R2: Notarized copy of the product and safety information
cited in warranty book of Nokia.
Dated:28.3.2014 PRESIDENT
