J U D G E M E N T

              Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this case are re-capitulated as under :- 

              In epitome, the case of the Complaint, is that, the Complainant had purchased a Nokia mobile phone vide Model No. E – 700, EMEI no. 357909041231318 from the Opposite Party No. 1 on 23.02.2012 for a consideration amount of Rs. 25,000/- only along with one year replacement warranty.

               After purchasing the said mobile phone the said hand set started disturbance due to software mal functioning and connectivity as the said mobile phone got hanged at the time of switch on, the mobile phone automatically switched off at the time or just after taking the photo or video in the said device and further switched on and the captured picture got deleted and so on. The Complainant informed the matter to the Opposite Party No. 2 and the Opposite Party No. 2 returned the same without proper repairing the same for which the same problems arose further. The Complainant further informed the matter to the Nokia Support Service Centre through the two e-mails on 12.02.2013 and another on 22.02.2013 and accordingly on advice of the Nokia the Complainant had extended the warranty by paying a sum of Rs. 1,450/- only to the Opposite Party No. 2. The Complainant deposited his said device to the Opposite Party No. 2 on 11.02.2013 and informed the same to the Nokia Support on 17.04.2013 through the e-mail. But on checking the status of the repair the Complainant got no satisfactory result.

               Ultimately the Opposite Party No. 2 replaced the said defective device on 17.04.2013 but after a month the said replaced mobile phone started further problem on USB connection and became slow. The Complainant further informed the matter to the Opposite Party No. 2 but they failed to solve the problem.                                                                  

The Complainant severally requested the Opposite Parties through the e-mails but the Opposite Parties failed to do the same, what amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Party and caused mental agony and harassment to the Complainant for which he had asked for compensation. Hence, this case is filed for seeking adequate redressal before this Forum. 

                Resisting the Complaint, the Opposite Party No. 1 and the Opposite Party No. 2 filed the Written Version for denying the contentions and all material allegations made by the Complainant in the Petition of Complaint and stating inter alia, that the Complainant has no cause of action to file the instant case, the case is bad for defect of parties and the case is not maintainable.

               The specific case as stated by the Opposite Party No. 1 in gist, is that, to maintain the goodwill of the organization the Opposite Party No. 1 provides the proper services to its customers to their customers. In this instant case the Opposite Party No. 1 has also provided the proper services to the Complainant to his satisfaction the Complainant did not make any specific allegation against the present Opposite Party No. 1 and the present Opposite Party No. 1 is not the deficient in providing proper service towards the Complainant. So, this Opposite Party has denied any negligence or/ and deficiency in rendering service on his part and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of this case. 

                The case, as a whole, stated by the Opposite Party No. 2 in crisp, is that, the Opposite Party No. 2 being the manufacturing company informed that they are always ready and willing to replace the said disputed mobile hand set to the Complainant. Thus, no question of deficiency of service does arise at all and this Opposite Party No. 2 has denied any negligence or/ and deficiency in rendering service on his part and the Complainants are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and the Opposite Party No. 2 prayed for dismissal of the instant case.

                                           Points for Determination

               1.  Is the complaint maintainable under the C. P. Act ?

               2.  Was there any negligence or deficiency in service

                                      on the part of the O.Ps ?

               3.  Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?

                                                Decision with Reasons

                All the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.

               The main dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties is that whether the Opposite Parties are liable for not providing the proper service to the Complainant or not.  

               We have carefully considered and scrutinized the submission made before us by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No. 1 and the Opposite Party No. 2 himself through their authorized representative and also critically perused all the material documents on record.    

               On overall evaluation of the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocates of the Complainants and the Opposite Party No. 1 and the authorized representative of the Opposite Party No. 2, and on critical appreciation of the case record, it is clearly evident and admitted by the Opposite Parties that the Complainant had purchased a a Nokia mobile phone vide Model No. E – 700, EMEI no. 357909041231318 from the Opposite Party No. 1 on 23.02.2012 for a consideration amount of Rs. 25,000/- only along with one year replacement warranty

               It is revealed from the case record that the Opposite Party No. 1 denied their responsibility towards the Complainant as because they are only the dealer of the manufacturing company and they satisfactory sold out the said mobile and also had provided the proper service towards the Complainant.

                 Moreover nowhere in the complaint of the Complainant it is found that the Complainant made any specific allegation against the Opposite Party No. 1.

                Manifestly the fact remains that at the time of the hearing argument the Opposite Party No. 2 admitted the fact of the Complainant and specifically expressed that that being the manufacturing company they are always ready and willing to replace the said dispute mobile hand set towards the Complainant.

               Thus, the unanimous decision of the Forum is that the Opposite Party No. 2 is liable to replace the said mobile hand set with a new one with equivalent facilities and equivalent cost without making any extra payment by the Complainant. And the Opposite Party has no liability towards the Complainant. Moreover though the Opposite Party No. 2 without disputing admitted their fault and ready and willing to replace the said disputed product we award no compensation towards the Opposite Party No. 2.

               Therefore, in light of the above analysis, we are inclined to hold that the Complainant has successfully proved his case and accordingly is entitled to get the relief as prayed for and consequently the points for determination are decided in affirmative.

              In short, the Complainant deserves success.

              In the result, we proceed to pass 

                                     C. C.  CASE  NO.  4/2014

                                                O R D E R 

               That the case be and the same is allowed on consent but without any cost.

               That the Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to replace the said mobile hand set with a new one with equivalent facilities and equivalent cost (without making any extra payment by the Complainant) in favour of the Complainant within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.

               In the event of non compliance of any portion of the order by the O.Ps within a period of one month from the date of this order, the concern Opposite Party shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 400/- per day, from the date of this order till full satisfaction of the decree, and out of which 50% shall be paid to the Complainant and rest 50% amount shall be deposited by the concern Opposite Party to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.

               Let the copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.