BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 309/2015 Filed on 07.07.2015

ORDER DATED: 16.01.2017

Complainant:

P.V. Sujith, Vattavila Veedu, Pulloorkonam, Vizhinjam.

                             (By Adv. Sreevaraham N.G. Mahesh)                              

Opposite parties:

1. The Manager, Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Office, Plot No. 243, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Gurgaon-122 016, New Delhi.

2. The Manager, Mobility Solutions, Vijaya Tower, T.C 21/125(5), First Floor, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram-695 002.

3. The Manager, Pothys Life Style, T.C 28/2477-7, M.G. Road, Ayurveda College Junction, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.

This C.C having been heard on 24.11.2016, the Forum on 16.01.2017 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR:  MEMBER

Case of the complainant is as follows:  He purchased a mobile phone named Nokia Lumia 1320 on 21.04.2014.  The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the mobile phone.  The 2^nd opposite party is the service centre of 1^st opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party is the dealer of 1^st opposite party.  The complainant purchased a Nokia Lumia 1320 for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- on 21.04.2014 from the 3^rd opposite party.  It is submitted that after two days of purchase so many defects occurred such as “no network, poor sensitivity, sudden drop in signal, can’t make calls” etc.  The complainant immediately informed the matter to the service centre of 2^nd opposite party and they informed that problem of the mobile phone will be rectified within a short period.  Even after one month the same defects occurred in the mobile phone and complainant is not in a position to use the mobile phone.  It is pertinent to note that the defects occurred within warranty period.  But unfortunately both the manufacturer and service centre of the opposite parties did not care to redress the complainant’s grievance.  The above action on the part of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  It is pertinent to note that the mobile phone is still in the custody of the 2^nd opposite party.  But there is no response on the part of opposite parties.  On 07.04.2015 as per job sheet issued by 2^nd opposite party it is mentioned that defects like display line, delay for apps download, applications moved to main menu etc.  The above action of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complainant feels disappointing that Nokia Mobile phone is behaving badly without keeping commitment to the complainant and the defects occurred within warranty period.  Both the manufacturer and dealer of the mobile phone company is liable to refund the price of the mobile phone and the defect occurred.  The complainant is working in a private bank.  Due to the defects occurred in the mobile phone the banking datas and important mobile phone numbers were lost due to inaction of service on the part of opposite parties. 

Notice was served to all the three opposite parties. But they failed to appear and we proceeded exparte against them. 

Issues raised:

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party is proved?
2. If so, what are the reliefs for the complainant?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Complainant filed affidavit along with 3 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P3, wherein Ext. P1 is the purchase bill which shows the price of the handset as Rs. 20,000/-.  Mobile handset is still in the custody of 2^nd opposite party.  It became faulty within days of its purchase.  The purpose for which handset was brought was not served, for which complainant is eligible for compensation, which we fix as Rs. 5,000/-.  There is nothing on record to show that the allegations in the complaint are false.  So we are allowing the complaint. 

In the result, complaint is allowed.  Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs. 20,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation within 2 months of receipt of this order, failing which the entire amount (Rs. 20,000/- + Rs. 5,000/-) will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default till the date of realization.  No order on costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 16^th day of January 2017.

Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER 

 Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

                        R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 309/2015

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of invoice dated 21.04.2014 issued by 3^rd O.P

P2     - Copy of service job sheet dated 07.04.2015 issued by 2^nd O.P

P3     - Copy of service job sheet dated 03.06.2015 issued by 2^nd O.P

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb