Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/15/789

Damodar G Prabhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Wise Solutions and Other - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jun 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 22.04.2015

                                                      Disposed on: 29.06.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.789/2015

DATED THIS THE 29^th JUNE OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Damodar G Prabhu

31, Shringar Apartments,

18^th cross, Malleswaram, Bengaluru-03.

 

Inperson     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

1. The Manager

Wise Solutions

(Authorized service center)

25/1, Srikanta Mahal,

1^st cross, Sampige Road,

Near Sampige Theatre, Malleshwaram,

Bengaluru-03.

 

2. The Manager

Poorvika Mobiles Pvt. ltd.,

B.O.R.S Plaza, No.452,

2^nd main road,

Malleswaam,

Bengaluru-03.

 

3. The Managing Director,

Poorvika Mobiles Pvt. ltd.,

30, Arcot Road,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai,

Tamilnadu -600024

 

Advocates for Op.no.2 & 3 M/s.Bajaj & Kumar Law Chambers

 

4. The Managing Director,

Microsoft Corporation

(India) Pvt. ltd., 807,

New Delhi House,

Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi – 110001

 

Exparte

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party no.1, 2, 3 & 4 (hereinafter referred as Op.no.1, 2, 3 & 4 or Ops) seeking issuance of direction to apologize for all the inconvenience caused to the Complainant, to provide an upgraded handset at the earliest, to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards cost and to grant such other reliefs deem fit for which the Complainant is entitled to.

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, he purchased a Lumia 630 Dual sim mobile phone (hereinafter referred as the said mobile handset) on 08.06.14 for Rs.11,600/- from Op.no.2 belongs to the company of Op.no.4. It is the case of the Complainant that, ever since Aug 2014, the Complainant started facing some or the other issue with the alarm of the phone. For some time the Complainant bared with the issue but when the issue persisted, the Complainant visited the nearest Op.no.1 service center and reported the issue. By this time, he was facing several issues like phone hanging for which he had to remove battery and replace it every time, automatic switch off, alarm and calls not working frequently and slow responsiveness. The Complainant further submits that, his submitted the phone with Op.no.1 but Op.no.1 merely reset the phone and handed over the phone back to the Complainant, assuring him that the phone will work just fine. Moreover, the Complainant’s phone was returned with a mark on the phone’s screen which the Complainant is unable to remove. Even after the repairs, he faced the same problems and thus contacted Op.no.1 again. Eventually the Complainant ended up submitting his phone with Op.no.1 three more times but every time he was provided his phone back after merely resetting the device. Moreover, no jobsheet was provided to the Complainant all these times. Complainant tried communicating with the Ops several times and even reported the matter to Op.no.4 through emails. But every time he was merely asked to visit the nearest service center who eventually just reset the phone and returned to the Complainant. The Complainant further submits that, after writing a strong worded letter to the Ops, the Complainant received a call from Op.no.1 that Complainant should visit them again and this time he would be attended to personally. Thus, he visited Op.no.1 for fifth time, but Complainant was offered that his phone will be replaced with a new and properly working handset.  The Complainant having lost trust with the Lumia 630, he asked for an upgraded handset as replacement and thus rejected the offer put forth by Op.no.1. The Complainant further submits that, on 07.04.15, he received another call from the Op.no.1 that they are willing to meet Complainant’s demands and thus he supposed to visit Op.no.1 and submit his phone there. He did so and was provided with an alternative handset for the time being, till an upgraded handset is provided to him. Even the alternative handset does not work properly and the Complainant is upset with the same. He further states that, he is even ready to pay the balance amount for the upgraded phone but till the he has not received the upgraded handset and is bearing with another defective phone. The Complainant further submits that, he even tried to amicably resolve the matter by sending a letter dtd.27.03.15 but even after the acknowledgement of the letter by Ops, he did not receive any positive response for his grievance from them. On account of the faulty services on the Op’s part, he suffered loss due to mental agony and financial loss. In this manner, Ops have compelled the Complainant to redress his grievances before this forum. Hence prays to allow the complaint.

 

3. On receipt of the notice, Op.no.1, 2 & 3 did appear, amongst them Op.no.2 & 3 filed joint version and Op.no.1 filed separate version denying the contents of the complaint. Inspite of notice served on Op.no.4, it did not appear, hence placed exparte. Version of Op.no.1 is that, Complainant had given the said handset for alarm issue on 24.11.14. At the time of delivery, checked all the features in the handset and told it is working fine. The Complainant had signed the job sheet. As frequent problems faced by the Complainant in the said handset, Op.no.1, as a good will and towards customer satisfaction, they had committed a replacement of the same model which was also agreed by the Complainant.  As per his request, they arranged a standby device and sent the said handset to their company and target delivery date was on 24.04.15. They had called the customer to collect the new handset on 21.04.15 well within the target delivery date.  The Complainant was not acknowledging the call which was made by their backened team so they tried calling him but was not picking the call and finally he had written an email. They are surprised to see that, Complainant is finally taken the steps to go legal as he told us. Op.no.1 requesting this forum that, may be pleased to direct the Complainant to collect the new swapped handset so that they shall talk to the company and give him one more year of service warranty, by which Complainant is getting total of 2 years service warranty. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on its part. Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.

 

3a. The sum and substance of the version of Op.no.2 & 3 are denial in nature. Further Op.no.2 & 3 have taken specific plea against the Complainant are that, at the time of purchasing the said mobile handset it clearly outlines the warranty/guarantee terms that are provided to the customer, which reads thus:

Mobile handsets and chargers re warranted for a period defined by the respective manufactures against defect in material and workmanship. Poorvika is not giving the warranty and does not hold out any warranty of products sold. Poorvika will not be responsible for any defective/deficient or otherwise unsatisfactory products. Any such defective or deficient goods has to be repaired only by authorized service center of the equipment manufacturer. All the terms & conditions of Poorvika mobile world apply. Subject to Chennai jurisdiction. The ledtures of the mobile is explained completely. Goods once sold cannot be returned or exchanged.

 

Further submits that, Complainant is aware of the terms & conditions of the clause as he has approached the service center. Despite being aware of all the terms & conditions of the warranty/guarantee, the Complainant has chosen to make the Op.no.2 & 3 a party to the proceedings before this forum in direct contravention of the terms of the clause. Op.no.2 is the authorized agent and is the business of selling mobile phones/cellular devices manufactured by Op.no.4. Further submits that, Op.no.2 & 3 are in no way liable and responsible manufacturing the phone or the warranty/guarantee issued by Op.no.4. Further submits that, it is no way concerned in respect of the alleged manufacturing defect. Saying so, Op.no.2 & 3 in toto denied the contents of the complaint and allegations made against them. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.

         

          4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents as Ex-A1 to A6. The Manager of Op.no.1, Authorized Representative of Op.no.2 & 3 filed respective affidavit evidences. Op.no.1 produced documents as annexure I to IV. Written arguments filed by Complainant, Op.no.2 & 3. We have gone through the available materials on record. Heard both side.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of Ops, if so, whether he entitled for the relief sought for ?    
2. What order ?

         

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Negative.  

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  In the instant case, purchase of the said mobile handset is not in dispute. Looking to the available materials on record, it is evident that, Complainant visited the Op.no.1 for fifth time, he was offered that his phone will be replaced with new properly working handset. But having lost trust with the Lumia 630, he asked for an upgraded handset as replacement and thus rejected the offer put forth by Op.no.1. Op.no.1 is being disgusted with regard to the act of the Complainant, proposed to rearrange the device, had sent the same to the company on job sheet no.665465550/150409/041 and target delivery date was on 24.04.15 and they have called the customer to collect the new handset on 21.04.15 well within the target delivery date. But the Complainant did not return to collect the new handset. When Op.no.1 has specifically given offer to the Complainant that, it is ready to provide new handset, under such circumstances, we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of Ops. In the instant case, the relief i.e. claimed by the Complainant is to direct the Ops to apologize for all the inconvenience caused to him, direct to provide an upgraded handset at the earliest, to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation. When Op.no.1 is ready to replace the new handset by obtaining the old handset, to this offer Complainant has not responded properly. Hence, we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of Ops. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 in the negative. Anyhow, an option is left open to the Complainant to approach Op.no.1 to collect the new handset, in that event, Op.no.1 is directed to give new handset of the similar feature with an extended warranty of one year to the Complainant.  

 

        8. Point no.2: In the result, we passed the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed.

 

2. Anyhow, an option is left open to the Complainant to approach Op.no.1 to collect the new handset, in that event, Op.no.1 is directed to give new handset of the similar feature with an extended warranty of one year to the Complainant.

 

          3. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own cost.   

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer in the open forum and pronounced on 29^th June 2018).

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Damodar G Prabhu, who being the complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Invoice
Ex-A2	Emails to Op.no.4 & their replies
Ex-A3	Last job sheet
Ex-A4	Letter to Ops
Ex-A5	Courier receipt
Ex-A6	Warranty card of manufacturer

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Harikumar, who being the Manager of Op.no.1 was examined.

Sri.V.Harikumar, who being the Authorized Representative of Op.no.2 & 3 was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party no.1

 

Annex.I & II	Service job sheets dtd.24.11.14, 09.04.15
Annex.III & IV	Emails dtd.07.04.15, 26.04.15, 24.04.15

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT