Complaint filed on: 20-01-2010<br /> Disposed on: 22-07-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.126/2010<br /> DATED THIS THE 22ND JULY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> <br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant: - Sri.Prajwal S/o. A.R.Adinath, <br /> Aged about 24 years,<br /> Residing at Devi Nilaya,<br /> 10th cross, Basavana Pura,<br /> Main Road, K.R.Puram,<br /> Bangalore. -05 <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s<br /> Opposite parties: - <br /> 1. M/s. Shakthi Communications, <br /> Nokia Care, M.M.Road,<br /> Frazer town,<br /> Bangalore - 05<br /> 2. Hotspots Retail Pvt Ltd,<br /> 4-c, 402, HRBR 2nd block<br /> Bangalore-43 <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT. <br /> <br /> Grievance of the complainant against the opposite parties [hereinafter called as OPs for short) in brief is that, he purchased a Nokia Mobile hand set from the 2nd OP on 6-5-2008 for a sum of Rs.15,750/-. The 2nd Op had assured, that one year warranty will be given and defects in the hand set will be set-right free of cost within one year of after purchase defects occurred in the mobile set due to low quality, Then it became useless due to the software problems. Then he gave that mobile set to the 2nd OP for repair on 1-5-2009, that the 2nd OP returned on 15-5-2009 saying that the defects are rectified. The mobile hand set worked only 1 or 2 days, then again it became useless and the Ops had not repaired properly despite requesting the 2nd OP to set right the problems, but he has failed to give service. Therefore attributing deficiency against the Ops has prayed for a direction to the Ops to refund his money Rs.15,750/- and for inconvenience and to award loss of Rs.1,00,000/- and also to pay costs. <br /> <br /> 2. The 2nd OP who was served with notice has remained absent is set exparte. The 1st OP has appeared through his advocate and filed version stating that he do not know the complainant purchasing a mobile set from the 2nd OP on 6-5-2009. This OP has denied that he had not repaired mobile set properly. That the complainant had given mobile hand set to him for repair on 29-4-2009 and after repairing it, it was given back to the complainant in good working condition on 10-5-2009. That he is only a service agent has nothing to do with the manufacturing of mobile hand set. That he only collects the hand sent form the customers and sends it to the manufacturer for repair. The complaint is therefore is not maintainable for non-joinder of manufacture as a party. That the complainant without giving hand set for inspection for looking his grievance has straight away sent a legal notice. Despite his request to him to bring the hand set for service he has not taken it and though he had told that hand set would be serviced as per the terms of the warranty, he has not turned up therefore denying any deficiency in service has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the 1st OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith the complaint has produced a copy of invoice and a copy of a legal notice he got issued to the Ops. The Op has not produced any documents. We have heard the counsel for parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that OPs have caused deficiency in their service in either not repairing the hand set or in refunding the cost of the mobile?<br /> 2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> <br /> 1. Answer Point No.1: In the affirmative as <br /> deficient in not repairing<br /> 2. Answer Point No.2: To see the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Answer on Point No.1: The complainant through his affidavit evidence and also copy of invoice has proved that he had purchased a mobile hand set from the 2nd OP on 6-5-2008 for Rs.15,750/-. This has not been disputed by the 2nd OP as he has not appeared and contested the complaint. The complainant alleges that after purchase of the mobile hand set on 6-5-2008 it developed some problems therefore gave it to the 2nd OP for repair who after repair returned it to him on 15-5-2009. The complainant here has not denied the fact that without any problems for about one year he used the mobile. But alleges after it was repaired and delivered to him on 15-5-2009 it did not work satisfactory for two days and thereafter the problem again developed. But the complainant has not alleged any deficiency against the 1st OP or any short coming in the repair of mobile hand set against OP No.1. Therefore the complainant is silent against the 1st OP and against whom we find no merits as such the complaint against 1st OP is liable to be dismissed. <br /> <br /> 7. Coming to the allegations of the complainant the mobile hand set is of low quality and it is defective one, absolutely he has not placed any materials in support of such allegation. Whenever the consumer alleges low quality product or manufacturing defects, burden is on him to prove that allegations in the case on hand except the allegations that there was problem and he gave it for repair and it was not properly repaired, he has produced any documents to prove that the hand sent can not be repaired and it is having any manufacturing defects. The complainant could have obtained a certificate from the service agent of the manufacture or the 2nd OP the dealer to prove that the hand sent which is not working can not be repaired if not he could have got the hand set checked through an expert or service agency to show that hand set is having inherent defects and it can not be cured. In the absence of such materials the allegations of the complainant that the hand set is having manufacturing defect can not be believed. <br /> <br /> 8. The complainant though alleged that the mobile hand set was not efficiently repaired but he has not proved in he having approached either 1st OP or 2nd OP for it’s repair. However produced a copy of the legal notice he got issued to the Ops informing them about the problems he faced in the mobile hand set. The Ops particularly the 2nd OP it appears has not responded to notice therefore the grievance of the complainant that the mobile hand set is not working, despite repair since has not been denied by the 2nd OP can not be disbelieved. The 2nd OP who is a dealer after receipt of legal notice and even on receipt of notice of this complaint from this forum should have appeared and prove the allegations of complainant as false or he could have offered to repair it, but has not chosen to do so therefore we find deficiency in the service of 2nd OP the dealer and therefore is liable to answer to the short coming caused by him. Since the complainant as stated above has not proved the defect in the manufacturing of the mobile hand set, he is not entitled for refund of money that too after using for one year. However, the complainant is entitled for its repair, therefore, we find that, the complaint is to be allowed in part by answering point no.1 accordingly and we pass the following order: <br /> O R D E R<br /> Complaint is allowed against the 2nd OP. The complainant shall hand over the mobile set to the 2nd OP for repair under an acknowledgement. The 2nd OP on receipt of mobile set within 15 days thereafter shall repair it effectively and return it to the complainant under an acknowledgement.<br /> <br /> In the event of the 2nd OP failing to repair the mobile set effectively within 15 days after receipt of the hand set from the complainant as stated above shall refund the depreciation cost of the mobile set of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. The 2nd OP failing to pay that amount within 30 days, after expiry of 15 days fixed above shall pay interest at 10% per annum on Rs.10,000/- to the complainant till that amount is paid. <br /> <br /> Under the circumstance of the case, both the parties to bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd July 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br />