By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:-
The complaint filed against the opposite party U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act to get cost and compensation for the deficiency of service.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant purchased a mobile handset of Nokia company from Malanad Times and Mobiles Meenangadi for Rs.2,150/-. Cell Number is 0670400524152, T-186 C 265 07 294, Charger No.481871224306 1011081 0675605.
3. When the said set was used, so many complaints were noted and the same was intimated to the Malanad Times and Mobiles. They said that the same may be intimated to Opposite party No.1 and thereby the complainant entrusted the set to opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 said that the software of the set is complaint and asked the complainant to keep the set with opposite party No.1 for one day. After one day the complainant get back the set and when it was using, it was found that the defects were not cleared. So the complainant sent a Registered Notice to the opposite party No.2 but the notice were returned unclaimed and the opposite party No.2 intimated the complainant through telephone to approach the opposite party No.1 and the Opposite party No.1 will replace the set with new one. So the complainant on 09.11.2012 entrusted the set to opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 told that the new set will come from the company and the complainant is asked to approach on 19.11.2012. As per the advice of opposite party No.1, the complainant approached opposite party on 19.11.2012 but the opposite party No.1 said that the new set did not come and it will reach to opposite party No.2's office on 20.11.2012 and collect it from opposite party No.2. On 20.11.2012 also the set was not given by the opposite party No.2. Due to these hardships the complainant compelled to
change his Salem Journey to 21.11.2012, which was scheduled before. Then the complainant went to Salem on 21.11.2012.
4. When the set was entrusted to opposite party No.1 on 09.11.2012 the opposite party No.1 have substituted one second hand set to the complainant but that was also a useless one. So the complainant send a Registered Letter to the opposite party No.1 and the complainant forced to buy one another new mobile set from opposite party No.2 on 19.11.2012 (Cell No.067061995540. T 311321205371, Charger No.504520 2411031 411 388, 0675605). Thereafter also the complainant enquired about the set to the opposite party No.1 through telephone but the response of the opposite party No.1 was very bad and when complainant intimated the hardship caused to him and if the opposite party not delivered the set, it will be forced to take legal action against the opposite party No.1. Then the opposite party said that for them legal advisers are there and told the complainant to proceed with. The complainant further says that for these hardship he used to call taxi twice due to illness and due to these deficiency of service from the side of opposite parties he sustained much loss, mental agony and hardship and prayed before the Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
5. Complaint filed on 24.12.2012, Notice were served to opposite parties and version filed on 25.03.2013 and states that the above complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Opposite parties admitted that the set is purchased from opposite party No.2 and entrusted the set to opposite party No.1 for repair and further says that opposite party No.1 sent the set to the head office at Delhi for repair and told to the complainant that the set will be delivered to the complainant within 15 days. Thereafter on a request from the complainant the opposite party No.1 contacted the Delhi office and compelled them to send the set with an urgent courier. And after getting the date from head office opposite party No.1 informed to complainant that the set will arrive the opposite party No.1's office on 19.11.2012. But on 19.11.2012 morning complainant came to opposite party No.1's office and asked for the mobile but opposite party No.1 said that the courier will arrive only in the evening. On hearing this the complainant shouted against opposite Party No1's staff and demanded the set then and there and threaten them with dare consequences.
6. In the evening on 19.11.2012 the set arrived in opposite party No.1's office and the matter is intimated to the complainant and complainant agreed to come on the next day, but the next day the shop could not be opened due to the harthal by the Vyapari Vyavasaya samithy. Then on 21.11.2012 the opposite party No.1 called up the complainant to come and collect the set. Then the complainant said that he will collect the set from the court. Thereafter he did not come to opposite party No.1's office and further says that opposite party No.1 replied for a letter given by the complainant stating all the details, but the complainant willfully denies this and says that the complaint is filed on a vengeance by the complainant. The opposite party No.1 was delivered good service to the complainant and prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
7. On considering the complaint, version, affidavit and documents the following points are to be considered:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
8. Point No.1:- To prove the complainant's case, in addition to the complaint the complainant filed chief affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint. He is examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked. Ext.A1 is marked with objection from the side of opposite party. Opposite party is examined as OPW1 and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked.
9. Ext.A1 is the photo copy of the service job sheet, which is issued by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant. It only shows that set is entrusted with the opposite party No.1. It is already admitted by the opposite party that the set is already entrusted with opposite party No.1. Ext.A2 is the Postal Receipt, which shows that as per the complaint the complainant send a Registered letter to opposite party No.2. Ext.A3 is the Postal Receipt, which shows that as per the complaint the complainant send a Registered letter to opposite party No.1. Ext.A4 is the train ticket, which shows, as per the complaint the complainant traveled from Kozhikode to Arakkonam (Salem) on 21.11.2012. Ext.A5 is the user guide issued by opposite party No.2 to the complainant on 25.07.2012, which bears the cell number and charger number. Ext. B1 is the copy of Reply Notice send by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant, in which opposite party No.1 stated that on 19.11.2012 the set will be delivered to the complainant.
10. On perusal of the complaint, version, affidavit, deposition and documents, it can be seen that complainant purchased a mobile set from opposite party No.2 and it was entrusted to opposite party No.1 and opposite party offered the delivery of the set on 19.11.2012. But on 19.11.2012 the opposite party No.1 did not deliver the set to the complainant. It is admitted by the opposite party No.1 in his version. This is a clear deficiency of service from the side of opposite party No.1. It is pertinent to note that a customer should not be simply dragged to the service provider without a valid reason. In usual course coming and going without fulfilling the needs by a customer from the remote area is very difficult and cause hardship, mental agony and also cause financial loss than some days of delay. In this case the complainant dragged in to the opposite parties shop so many times and due to this he caused so much hardships. As a latches happened from the side of opposite parties, the opposite parties could have taken the set to the opposite party's house and could have send the set to the complainant by Registered post (parcel).
11. Hence we are in the opinion that not making prompt delivery of the defective goods in the offered time, not taking steps to cure the deficiency and not delivering the items to the
customer are clear deficiency of service on the side of the opposite parties. The Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
12. Point No.2:- Since there is findings of deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties, the complainant is entitled for compensation and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result the complaint is party allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,150/- (Rupees Two Thousand One Hundred and fifty) only as cost of the mobile set with 10% interest per annum from 09.11.2012 and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred) only as compensation. This Order must be complied by the opposite parties jointly and severally within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 16th day of December 2013.
Date of Filing:24.12.2012.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Sreeman Narayanan. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
OPW1. Aswathi. Proprietor, Bhagavathi Communications.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Service Job sheet. Dt:09.11.2012.
A2. Postal Receipt. Dt:08.11.2012.
A3. Postal Receipt. Dt:27.11.2012.
A4. Train Ticket.
A5. User Guide.
Exhibits for the opposite Parties:
B1. Copy of Reply Notice. Dt:12.03.2012.
B2. Returned Letter.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
