Date of Filing:21.10.2008<br /> Date of Order:21.01.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2235 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Ananth Kumar,<br /> S/o Gangadhar, No. 150,<br /> Chikkatayappa Reddy Layout,<br /> Chelukuri Ring Road,<br /> Kalyana Nagar,<br /> Bangalore-560 043. Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. The Care Manager,<br /> Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> Af, Tower A & B, Cybergrun,<br /> DLF Cyber City,<br /> Sector 25A, Gurgaon-122002,<br /> Reptd. By its Managing Director.<br /> <br /> 2. Arun Telecommunications,<br /> No.96/1, 4th Cross, Mariyappa Circle,<br /> New JVV, HRBR Layout,<br /> Kalyana Nagar, <br /> Bangalore-560 043,<br /> Reptd. By its Manager.<br /> <br /> 3. Clarity Cells, No. 342, <br /> Dr. Rajkumar Road, 6th Block, <br /> Rajajinagar, Bangalore. Opposite Parties<br /> ORDER<br /> By the Member Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming refund of Rs.13,600/- with interest and damages. <br /> The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased NOKIA N-73 handset on 25/03/2008 from the showroom of opposite party No.2 by paying a sum of Rs.13,600/- vide Bill No.13549 with one year warranty against any defects for the handset. After purchasing the handset, the complainant facing service problems within fifteen days from the date of purchase. The voices clarity, camera, error message, games functions are not properly working, video recorder is not properly functioning. The complainant visited the opposite party No.2 and informed about the difficulties with the handset, the opposite party No.2 assured to the complainant that there may be a major problem and the same would be replaced. The opposite party No.2 neither replaced nor took back the handset and advised the complainant to approach opposite party No.3 for the defects found in the handset. On the same day the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 and handed over the handset. The opposite party No.3 has given service job sheet. In the service job sheet the authorised person had clearly mentioned the defects found in the handset i.e., “data loss approved board to be unique battery sim mmc card not taken” camera in bad image, error message. The complainant visited the opposite parties premises several times to rectify the defects but went in vain. The opposite party No.2 not bothered about the complainant requests regarding the handset. Regarding this subject, the complainant sent e-mail to the opposite party No.1, for the said e-mail the opposite party No.1 sent untenable reply. The complainant made several telephone calls to the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 failed to redress the complainant grievance. This clearly shows the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint. <br /> <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through Advocate and filed defense version. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have not claimed the notices and hence opposite party No.2 and 3 have placed exparte. The opposite party No.1 submitted that, it is the manufacturer of mobile handset. The complainant’s gesture and faith towards the opposite party and its product purchased by him is appreciable and commendable. The opposite party No.1 submitted that it is ready and willing to redress the grievances of the complainant and repair the alleged defect in the handset, subject to the limited warranty clause that had been accordingly followed by the complainant. As regard to that the complainant was unable to use the handset, the complainant himself liable for the negligence and hardship. The complainant failed to adduce documentary evidence in support of the averments made in the complaint, and hence same is liable to be dismissed. <br /> 3. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. The point for consideration is:- <br /> Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. Perused the complaint, and documents. It is an admitted fact that, the complainant has purchased NOKIA N-73 series handset on 25/03/2008 from the showroom of opposite party No.2 by paying a sum of Rs.13,600/- vide Bill No.13549 with one year warranty. The complainant has produced receipt issued by the opposite party No.2. As per this receipt it is clear that he has purchased Nokia N-73 mobile handset from opposite party No.2 for Rs.13,600/- on 25/03/2008. After purchasing the mobile the set was not working properly and it has some defects. Therefore, he handed over the mobile set to opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.2 assured to the complainant that there may be a major problem and the same would be replaced. In the service job sheet the authorised person had clearly mentioned the defects found in the handset i.e., “data loss approved board to be unique battery sim mmc card not taken” camera in bad image, error message. The opposite party No.2 neither replaced nor took back the handset and advised the complainant to approach opposite party No.3 for the defects found in the handset. On the same day the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 and handed over the handset. Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice. Copy of legal notice produced. Nokia Company being a very big and popular company it should see that, no defective sets are sold to the customers. Consumer Protection Act is enacted to provide better protection to the customers. Protection of the consumers is the need of the hour. The handset purchased by the complainant was having manufacturing defect. Therefore, the complainant requested for replacement and there was no proper response and he got issued legal notice. Even after notice also the complainant has not got the relief. The opposite parties have not replaced the defective mobile with defect free mobile set. The complainant has sought compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment caused to him. The compensation sought by the complainant is unreasonable and unjustified. The question of granting that much of compensation is unwarranted. At the most, the complainant is entitled for refund of the price amount of the handset. So under these circumstances, it is just, fair and reasonable to order the opposite parties to refund the amount paid towards mobile set. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay refund Rs. 13,600/- to the complainant (the price amount of the mobile set). The opposite parties shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order. The amount be sent directly to the complainant by way of D.D or cheque with intimation to this Forum.<br /> 7. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings to the complainant.<br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2009.<br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> MEMBER <br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Rhr.,<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />