IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 28th day of October, 2021
Filed on 03.03.2020
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar.BSc. LLB(President)
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma. BA,LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.63/2020
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Muhammed Riyas 1. The Head of India
Pullipparampil Market, Nokia Networks
Thamallackal.P.O India – Corporate Office
Harippad, Alappuzha 7th Floor, Building 9A,
Pin-690 548 DLF Cyber City, DLF
(Party in person) Phase-III, Gurgaron
Haryana-122002
(Adv. Aravind Ghosh)
2. Sri. Varun Balan,
Area Manager-Service
Flex India, S-70 -A,
SVR Fortune, Electronics City
Phase -1, Near Coffee day
Bengaluru, Karnataka-560100
(EXparte)
3. The Service Centre in Charge,
Prime Cell, Ansons Building
CCSB Road, East of Iron Bridge
Alappuzha-688001
(Party in person)
O R D E R
SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
1. Brief facts of complainants case is as follows:-
Complainant had purchased a nokia mobile phone Sl No. 356954090024900 as per invoice No.7801 dated 12/12/2018 valuing Rs.19,999/- in the name of his mother. At the time of purchase 1st opposite party informed that the product has a warranty of one year. When asked about the warranty card they informed that there is no separate warranty cared and that the bill itself is the warranty card. The said phone not at all functioning satisfactorily from the 2nd day of its purchase. The complainant informing the matter the 1st opposite party immediately. On 16/9/2019 when the phone automatically switched off, when the complainant tried to make a call. Hence on 17/9/2019 the same was handed over to the 3rd opposite party for repairs (Job Sheet No. 139465550/190917/002-17-9-19). Their technician informed that the problem is that of software. However, after sometime 3rd opposite party returned it to the complainant informing that the problem of software has been rectified. On several occasions, when the complainant tried to play a video in the phone or to charge the phone or to make a call, the phone switched off. The complainant again entrusted the phone to 3rd opposite party for rectification. After some days they returned the phone informing that the sub-board has been changed and hence the defect rectified. Unfortunately again the problem developed on 21/10/2019. The complainant handed over the phone to the service centre, 3rd opposite party which was accepted vide job sheet no.139465550/191005/001 dated 21/10/2019. Afterwards, the complainant approached the service centre several times for the repaired phone. But they did not return back the phone, saying that the defect has not been properly rectified. After several days they returned back the phone informing that its main board has been changed and thus the problem has been solved permanently and as such, there will be no complaints in future. But after a week the phone frequently switched off and then restart by itself when the complainant was attending phone calls. The complainant is a showroom advisor in mahindra Car showroom Alappuzha. So the complainant should be in touch with his senior officials and also with customers as part of his job. He was required to send the photo’s of vehicle’s damaged in accident to the insurance advisor and also, has to frequently contact his superiors hence a properly functioning mobile phone is of utmost importance. Due to the frequent complaint of said phone the company lost several customers. Therefore the complainant took the phone again to the service centre on 3/10/2019 job sheet No.139465550/191030/003. However, till date, there has been no proper initiative yet to rectify the defects and ensure its smooth functioning. Even now the phone is with 3rd opposite party the complainant has contacted the area manager of 1st opposite party informed the matter and requested to arrange a new mobile phone without problems. Even though the area manager promised to look in to the matter, there has been no reply yet. Hence the complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party 1 and 3. The problem much started even from the warranty period was not due to any fault on the part of the complainant and since the repair was a continuous process which cannot be tolerated, he wants the opposite parties to accept back the product and refund it’s cost with interest
Considering all the above the complainant is seeking to pass the following orders.
- To direct the opposite party to refund Rs.19,999/- being the cost of the mobile phone with 15% interest from the date of purchase, compensation for deficiency of service, unfair trade practice and mental agony and cost of the proceedings.
-
Opposite party No.1 is neither the manufacturer of Nokia brand handset norsellingandproviding after sales service of Nokia brand handset.The said opposite party contented that complainantis not entitled to any claim or to get any relief claimed there in.The complaint is not maintainable in law oron facts, henceliable to be dismissed inlimine.The hand set was purchased by Noorjahan,mother of the complainantand thepresent complainanthas not been filed by Noorjahanand the complainant had not beenauthorized vide any Power of Attorneyto filed the present complainton behalf of Noorjahan.Hence the t complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on the above said ground.The mobile set purchased by the complainant did not suffer from any manufacturing defect and the allegationsstated in the complaint is completely false and the allegations with regard to the manufacturing defect of the product without adducing any documentary evidencewhatsoeveris false and baseless.The defect as alleged by the complainant is solely due to the mishandling of the handset and the present complaint had been filed an unauthorized person inorder to take due advantage from the opposite parties.The complainant had approached authorized service centre opposite party No.3 and the grievance regarding the rectification of the handset was corrected with due satisfaction.The complainant had used the handsetfor about 9 months without any fault or defect and whatever defect had occurred was due to the mishandling of the handset.The product to stringent quality control mechanism to ensure that the handset which reaches the customers isfree from defects. The complainant’s case is sheer reflectionof mishandlingof the hand set hence this opposite party cannot be heldresponsible for careless and negligent handling ofthehand set.It would be pertinent to mentioned thatwarranty period coversthe range of fault that ensuenormally frommechanicalfunctioning of the handset without any other influence.Whena hand set is suffering froma defectcovered under the limited warranty which occurs during thevalidity of warranty period assuch defect is beyond repair,then it such arare event, defective part is replaced and or handset is replaced by another handsetof the same model toavoid any kind of inconvenience or loss to thecustomer.Further the replacementas per the limited warranty terms islimited only to those cases by a repair is onlynot possible andor where there isgenuine problem ofrepeated repairs of thesameproblem.The conditions for exercisingwarranty as mentioned above strictly excludes any kind of improper handling physical damage which broadly means that any actbeyond reasonable control ofmanufacturer willno repair under warranty.Thus the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs from this opposite party.Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.
-
It is admitted that the complainant entrusted the disputed mobile phone with them on 17/9/2019.The complaint was auto restart of the phone and the same was rectified.Thereafter he approached them due to the same complaint of the phone on that occasion its sub PCB and main PCB had been replaced and solved the problem.Further the same complaint repeated and informed by them to the manufacturer.The manufacturer was ready to replace the said cell phone with a new one.But the complainant is not ready to accept the said offer and he claimed extended warranty.Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of 3rd opposite party and they are to be exempted from any of the liability as mentioned in the complaint.
4. The points for determination are:-
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the disputed mobile phone from the opposite parties?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
-
-
-
Ext.A1 is the invoice of the disputed handset which shows date of purchase, kindetc regarding the mobile phone.As per Ext.A1 the product purchased from gulf land gift and duty paid shop, Zero Junction, Mullackal, Alappuzha.Ext.A2 is the job sheet dated.17/9/2019 issued by 3rd opposite party.In which mentioned the fault of start –up- SW – failure – reflash”.Ext.A3 is the job sheet dated 21/10/2019 issued by the said opposite party in which faults and repair details mentioned as wireless charging module or contact failures.Ext.A4 is the job sheet by 3rd opposite party dtd. 30/10/2019.In which reported major system.
Admittedly the disputed mobile phone purchased in the name of Noorjahan, she is none other than the mother of the complainant.So it is clear that the complainant is a beneficiary and he is entitled to file this complaint.Therefore, Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.
Further that as per Ext.A2 to A4 Job Sheets were proved on various occasions said handset was repaired on different complaints and all are after 9 months of its purchase and within the warranty period. The3rd opposite party, service centre admitted that the set is not in a repairable condition and they have communicated said condition to the manufactureras well as to the complainant.The manufacturer was ready and willing to replace the same with a new one but the complainant was not ready to accept the said offer since he claimed fresh warranty.Though the manufacturing defect has been alleged by the complainant, the manufacturer is not in the party array.We think that the above offer by the manufacturer through 3rd opposite party is acceptable to satisfy the grievance of the complainant.The complainant averred that the mobile phone isstill under thecustody of 3rd opposite party and 3rd opposite party did not deny said contention.In view of the above we are only to hold that 3rd opposite party shall make necessary arrangements to replace the disputed mobile phone with fresh piece of the same specification and fresh warranty as admitted by 3rd opposite party in their version.Therefore, we are not ordering any compensation and cost of the proceedings.
In the result,
The 3rd opposite party is herby directed to replace the disputed mobile phone with a new one of the same specification and fresh warranty from the manufacturer.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 28th day of October, 2021.
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Sd/- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Muhammed Riyas(complainant)
Ext.A1 - Tax Invoice dtd. 12/12/2018
Ext.A2 - Delivery Note dtd.17/9/2019
Ext.A3 - Delivery Note dtd. 21/10/2019
Ext.A4 - Service Job Sheet dtd. 30/10/2019
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
//True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
