Sri.D.Krishnappa, President speaks for the Forum:-<br /> <br /> 1. Brief facts leading to this complaint may be set out as under:-<br /> The complainant submits that he had purchased a Nokia Colour handset, model 7610 bearing the IMIE No.357070003594159 charger No.399679, batter No.0510250036018011173 from the 1st Opposite party on 03.01.2006 by paying a sum of Rs.14,100/-. The said handset had a warranty for one year from the date of purchase. The handset worked in good condition for 3 months and later it used to switch off automatically this prevented the complainant from getting any incoming calls. On 01.04.2006 the complainant approached the 1st Opposite party who directed him to approach the 2nd Opposite party as per the Nokia Guideline book and conditions. The 2nd Opposite party received the handset and repaired the same on 01.04.2006, 03.04.2006, 15.04.2006 and 24.04.2006 vide job sheet No.1864, 1032, 2101 and 10875 respectively, but the problem could not be rectified. The 2nd Opposite party requested the complainant to approach the 3rd Opposite party in Bangalore.<br /> <br /> 2. On 31.05.2006 the Opposite party repaired the handset vide job sheet No.BAN GO 74400, but the problem was not solved on 15.09.2006 the complainant approached the 3rd Opposite party again who assured him that he would replace the same with the new set, but replaced with an old handset with scratches all over. The complainant refused to accept old handset as he needed new handset or any handset for the same value or even was ready to pay the difference if he is given the next model with higher price. The handset still remaining with the 3rd Opposite party. Hence, this complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In spite of service of notices, the Opposite parties failed to appear before this Forum and therefore they are set exparte.<br /> <br /> 4. In support of averments made in the complaint Mr.Nagesh has filed his duly sworn affidavit and produced following documents:-<br /> (1) Mobile purchase receipt dated 03.01.2006 (original bill).<br /> (2) Service job sheet No.10875 / dated 24.04.2006 (Xerox).<br /> (3) Service job sheet No.BAN-GO74400 / dated:31.05.2006, job sheet for replacement of mobile handset along with customer equipment and inspection receipt dated 17.09.2006 given by the 3rd Opposite party saying that if they produced these two copies Opposite party will return back the handset model no.7610. But the complainant refused to take the replacement of his handset with old one (original).<br /> (4) Three registered post receipts for having sent RP letters dated 10.11.2006 (original).<br /> (5) Three registered post receipts for having sent by RPAD dated 07.12.2006 (original) 3 acknowledgements received by the 1st and 2nd Opposite parties dated 08.12.2006 and by the 3rd Opposite party dated 12.12.2006.<br /> <br /> 5. Heard arguments.<br /> <br /> 6. The material points that arise for our consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that Opposite parties have caused deficiency in service?<br /> 2. Whether complainant proves that Opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation as mentioned in the complaint?<br /> 3. What order?<br /> <br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : In the affirmative.<br /> Point no.3 : See the final order<br /> REASONS<br /> 8. Points no.1 & 2:- The complainant in his affidavit has sworn to all the facts pleaded in his complaint. In particular he has stated that he purchased a Nokia colour handset model 7610 bearing IMIE No.357070003594159, charger No.399679, batter no.0510250036018011173 from the 1st Opposite party on 03.01.2006 by paying a sum of Rs.14,100/-, the hand set had a warranty of 1 year from the date of purchase. <br /> <br /> 9. In the legal notice addressed to all Opposite parties on 06.01.2007, through his counsel calling upon the Opposite parties to replace the handset or repay Rs.14,000/- being the sale price paid by him. Inspite of service of notice Opposite parties have neither replied nor complied to the contents of notice.<br /> <br /> 10. Basically, the Opposite parties have not appeared before this Forum to contest this complaint and as such the evidence placed by the complainant is not at all disputed by the Opposite parties and therefore the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unchallenged.<br /> <br /> 11. The fact that the Complainant within 4 months after he purchased the brand new set from the Opposite party, approached the Opposite parties with a Complaint of mall functioning and thereafter repeatedly on 4, 5 occasions with the same problem approached them which do indicate without any scope for doubt that the handset supplied by the Opposite party to the Complainant had manufacturing defect and despite the Opposite parties made efforts were not able to rectify and give the handset to the Complainant free of problem. These facts which are placed before this Forum and sworn to by the Complainant are not controverted by the Opposite parties. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the handset supplied by the Opposite parties to the Complainant was having manufacturing defect and Opposite parties have failed to attend to those problem and to provide efficient service. <br /> 12. The facts sworn to by the complainant in his affidavit are substantiated by the documents produced by him. On the basis of the affidavit of the complainant and the above said documents placed by the complainant, it is manifestly established that the Opposite parties have clearly caused deficiency in service to the complainant. Hence, we answer these point 1 and 2 in the affirmative.<br /> <br /> 13. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite reasonable for the Opposite parties to pay the compensation and therefore they are liable to pay the compensation as mentioned in the complaint.<br /> <br /> 14. In the result for the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The 1st Opposite party is directed to replace the set he sold to the Complainant by supplying a new mobile telephone of the same brand of the same value, if that brand of handset is not available to replace with another set of the same value or little more value, as the Complainant has agreed to pay the excess amount, within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the 1st Opposite party shall repay a sum of Rs.14,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 03.01.2006 within the period stipulated above, failing which he shall pay interest at 15% p.a. from 03.01.2006 till the date of payment.<br /> 3. The 1st Opposite party shall also pay cost of this Complaint at Rs.1,000/-. <br /> 4. Opposite parties 2 & 3 said to be the servicing agencies against whom no order of liability is imposed.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br />