IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.188/2012 (Filed on 04.12.2012)
Between:
Prasad,
S/o. Padmanabha Pillai,
Mullamangalathu Veedu,
Kumbazha Vadakku,
Mylapra. P.O.,
Pathanamthitta – 689 671.
(By Adv. Soman Pillai) …. Complainant
And:
T.H. Noushad,
Proprietor,
Rolex Mobile House,
Nokia Priority Dealer,
Ennasseril Building,
Pathanamthitta. …. Opposite party
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a Nokia N-97 Mini Model (IMIE No.351979048715700) on 20.10.2010 by paying Rs. 28,975 vide invoice No.79831 dated 20.12.2010 from the opposite party. However, at the time of purchase, the owner’s manual, warranty card and other accessories were not given by the opposite party by saying that it will be given later. Thereafter the complainant approached several time for getting the warranty card etc. But opposite party did not given the same so far. While so, within the warranty period, the opposite party repaired the complaints of the phone at the service centre of the opposite party which is attached to his shop. Thereafter on 22.10.2012 the said phone was given for the repairs of complaints. At that time opposite party demanded Rs. 8,000 for the repairs saying that the warranty is over. The job sheet given by the opposite party at that time showed the date of purchase as 01.03.2006. The said phone is also returned to the complainant without carrying out the repairs. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice on 01.11.2012 stating the facts mentioned here in above with a demand for the return of the price of the phone. Though the opposite party accepted the notice he had not honoured the demand of the complainant. According to the complainant, the opposite party purposefully cheated the complainant by giving an old mobile phone by saying that it is a new phone. The above said act and the non repair of the phone by the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of Rs. 28,975, the cost of the phone, along with compensation of Rs. 10,000 and cost of this proceedings.
3. Opposite party entered appearance and filed a version with the following main contentions:- Opposite party admitted the sale of the phone. He denied the allegation that the said phone was an old one. The said phone was purchased by the opposite party for sales on 22.06.2010 from Athulya Shopping Centre. All the accessories and the warranty card were given to the complainant at the time of purchase itself. The complainant purchased the phone after fully satisfying the conditions and its freshness. The warranty for the said phone is only for 12 months and the complaints noted are caused due to the mishandling of the phone by the complainant. The information in the job sheet is entered as per the information furnished by the complainant. All the allegations in the complaint are false and the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint, as the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. With the above contentions, opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint is allowable or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 series. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
6. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation is that he had purchased a mobile phone for Rs. 28,975 from the opposite party. The complaints of the mobile phone occurred during the warranty period was not repaired by the opposite party. Further, the opposite party had demanded repairing charged also. Moreover, as per the job sheet given by the opposite party, the said mobile phone is an old one and the complainant was cheated by the opposite party by selling an old mobile phone by saying that it is a new phone. Opposite party has also not supplied the warranty card or the accessories. All the above said issues were intimated by the complainant to the opposite party through an advocate notice dated 01.11.2012 with a demand for redressing the grievances of the complainant. All the above said acts of the opposite party caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3 series. Ext.A1 is the invoice dated 20.12.2010 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant for the sale of the mobile phone. Ext.A2 is the attested copy of the service job sheet dated 22.10.2012 issued from Nokia Care in the name of the complainant. Ext.A3 is the copy of advocate notice dated 01.11.2012 issued to the opposite party. Ext.A3(a) and A3(b) are the postal receipt and acknowledgement card of Ext.A3.
8. Opposite party has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour other than the written version filed by the opposite party. At the same time opposite party cross-examined PW1.
9. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the available materials on record and found that the parties have no dispute with regard to the sale and purchase of the mobile phone. The dispute raised by the complainant is that the opposite party has not repaired the complaints of the phone in spite of the warranty and the opposite party cheated the complainant by selling an old mobile phone saying that the said phone is new. With regard to the first dispute, the complainant ought to have got the warranty card. But he had not produced the warranty card saying that it was not given by the opposite party at the time of the sale. But that story is not believable for the reason that the warranty card of a product is the part and parcel of that product and it ought to have been collected at the purchase itself. Nobody is entitled to weep for the non delivery of the warranty card after 2 years of the date of purchase. All the facts and circumstances and from the available evidence, it is seen that the complainant kept silence for the last 2 years in respect of the warranty card. He has not adduced any evidence to show that he had taken effective steps for obtaining the warranty card for the last 2 years. So his argument that the opposite party has not given the warranty card so far is not sustainable. Moreover, there is no cogent evidence to show that the complainant’s mobile phone was repaired by the opposite party free of cost as claimed by the complainant. As per the available evidence the complainant approached the opposite party for the repairs only on 22.10.2012 vide Ext.A2. According to the opposite party, the said complaint of the phone is outside the warranty period. In the absence of the warranty card, we cannot found that date, i.e. 22.10.2012, is within the warranty period or not. In the circumstances, the Forum is not in a position to allow any warranty benefits to the complainant. Then comes the question regarding the oldness of the mobile phone in question. In this matter also complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that the mobile phone sold by the opposite party was not a new phone. The entry in Ext.A2 regarding the purchase date as 01.03.2006 alone is not sufficient for arriving at a conclusion in favour of the complainant regarding the oldness of the phone. Therefore in all respects the complainant has failed to establish his case.
10. Without having a warranty card, nobody can claim warranty benefit. According to the complainant, his phone showed complaints on 22.10.2012 whereas it was purchased on 20.12.2010. In the absence of the warranty card and in the absence of any cogent evidence showing that he was cheated by the opposite party by supplying an old phone by saying it as a new phone, we cannot find any deficiency of service against the opposite party. It is pertinent to note that at the time of purchase or till the issuance of the legal notice, the complainant had no allegations against the opposite party.
11. In the circumstances, we find no merits in this case and hence it is liable to be dismissed.
12. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of March, 2013.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : M.P. Prasad
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Invoice dated 20.12.2010 for Rs. 28,975 issued by the
opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A2 : Attested copy of the service job sheet dated 22.10.2012
issued from Nokia Care in the name of the complainant.
A3 : Copy of advocate notice dated 01.11.2012 issued by the
complainant to the opposite party.
A3(a): Postal receipt of Ext.A3
A3(b): Acknowledgement card of Ext.A3.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Prasad, Mullamangalathu Veedu,
Kumbazha Vadakku, Mylapra. P.O.,
Pathanamthitta – 689 671.
(2) T.H. Noushad, Proprietor, Rolex Mobile House,
Nokia Priority Dealer, Ennasseril Building,
Pathanamthitta.
(3) The Stock File.
