Presented by Miss R. Pattnayak, President .
Sri Shakti Agrawal has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986, praying therein that, the Opposite Parties be directed to :-
Replace the Mobile with a new one of other model or to refund the cost of the mobile with interest.
Pay Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only as compensation towards financial loss, mental pressure and physical strain.
Pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards litigation expenses, along with pendentelite and future interest besides any other fit and equitable relief.
In brief, the case of the Complainant is that on dated 26/10/2011, he purchased one Mobile set bearing IMEI No. 357924043425545, Model Nokia N 500 from the dealer i.e. Shreeram Mobile point, Das Colony, Bargarh (Opposite Party No.4(four) for Rs.9,550/- (Rupees nine thousand five hundred fifty)only for his personal use.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) is the manufacturer of 'Nokia' Mobile phones. The Opposite Party No.2(two) is the authorized regional office of Opposite Party No.1(one) situated at BBSR. The Opposite Party No.3(three) is the local service station of Opposite Party No.1(one) at Bargarh who used to provide after sale service to the customer being authorized by the company.
At the time of purchase of the said mobile set, the Money Receipt bearing No.754 was issued by Opposite Party No.4(four) to the Complainant showing purchase of the mobile and has made endorsement on it to the effect that, the mobile set is covered under warranty for twelve months from the date of purchase including replacement if necessary.
According to the complainant, after using the mobile for some months, he found that the set sometimes switched off automatically, some times shows no net work, set hang problem, GPRS not open and is not functioning properly. So the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.3(three) and requested to solve the problem but the Opposite Party No.3(three) retained the mobile for some days and returned the same after necessary repairs stating to have repaired all the defects.
Further it has been pleaded by the Complainant that on Dt.02/06/2012 i.e. within the warranty period, above referred defects again occurred in the mobile. So the Complainant again approached the Opposite Party No.3(three), handed over the said mobile set for repair to him against which the said Opposite Party No.3(three) issued a service job sheet bearing No. 635504886/120602/77 on Dt.02/06/2012 and repaired the Mobile on the same day and gave delivery of the mobile set to the Complainant. But the Complainant again noticed the same defects in the mobile at the spot of delivery itself and brought the same to the notice of Opposite Party No.3(three) to which Opposite Party No.3(three) assured to return the mobile within a reasonable time after repair stating that it is required to be sent to higher authorities. Subsequently, there after on reciept of information from the Opposite Party No.2(two), the Complainant went to the office of the Opposite Party No.2(two) at Bhubaneswar and being agreed for replacement of the mobile vide Replacement Note No. RN 440994 Dt. 04/06/12, replaced the mobile on Dt.11/06/2012 with another one of the same model bearing IMEI No. 352417050180454. According to the Complainant, after using the replaced mobile, he found again the same defects. So he approached and lodged the complaint with the Opposite Party No.3(three) about three to four times but the Opposite Party No.3(three) in turn each time retained the mobile for some time, issued, the service job sheets, on the process of repair updating software of the same and delivering the mobile to the Complainant by taking back the service job sheets. In the mean time also the Complainant on payment of further Costs on Dt.30/01/2012 availed extended warranty for the mobile vide Registration PIN No.302780791172733, from the Opposite Parties. At last on Dt.08/10/2012 the Complainant again lodged the complaint before the Opposite Party No.3(three) for the same defect and has handed over the said mobile set for repair to the Opposite Party No.3(three) against which the said Opposite Party No.3(three) issued a service job sheet bearing No. W7362 Dt.08/10/2012 and provide him a stand by mobile set as an alternative arrangement. The Complainant several times had been to the Opposite Party No.3(three) to take back his mobile but on each time the Complainant after noticing the same defects drawn the attention of Opposite Party No.3(three) but the Opposite Party No.3(three) pressing hard the Complainant to take back the mobile as it is stating that defect is not repairable at all. Further, the Complainant has drawn the attention of the contact centre of Opposite Party No.1(one) through E-mail on Dt.27/09/2012 who also replied vide mail Dt.28/09/2012 with an assurance to solve the matter within 48 hours. Since the Complainant did not get any communication for a considerable period, caused servece of Notice on Dt.11/10/2012 through mail but the Opposite Parties did not give any reply, other wise remained silent.
It has been pleaded by the Complainant that despite his repeated requests to Opposite Parties they failed to cure defects. The defect found in the mobile set is nothing but the manufacturing defect and without curing the fault and without providing the requisite service there of on part of Opposite Parties is illegal, and amount to deficiency in service because the mobile is being defective during its warranty period. This is the voilation of warranty rule by the concerned Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are violating the terms and conditions of the warranty issued by the company. On the other hand, the Complainant suffered loss mental agony and physical harassment without getting any benefit or utility by this illegal act of the Opposite Parties.
In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the relief mentioned above.
The Complainant has filed following documents to prove his case.
Copy of challan No.754 issued by Opposite Party No.4(four).
Copy of Manufacturer's warranty.
Copy of Nokia Care protect certificate of coverage.
Copy of service job sheets No. 635504886/120602/77 Dt.02/06/2012.
Copy of replacement Note No. RN 440994 Dt.04/06/2012.
Copy of service job sheet No. W. 7362 Dt.08/10/2012.
Copy of E.Mail Dt.27/09/2012/28/09/2012/11/10/2012.
Notices were duly served on the Opposite Parties and the case was posted for appearance and version by the Opposite Parties but No body were appeared and did not respond to Court proceedings. The Opposite Parties were set ex-parte on Dt.24/07/2012. Hence we decide the case on merit.
Relying on the pleading of the Complainant, we take up the following issues for adjudication.
-: ISSUE :-
(1)Are the Opposite Parties guilty of deficiency in service ?
(2)Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief ?
(3)Whether compensation has to be awared as prayed for by the complainant and to what compensation, the complainant is entitled for ?
Issue No. 1(one), No.2(two) and No.3(three):-
On careful consideration of the complaint petition, we found that purchase of mobile phone from Shreeram Mobile Point, Bargarh i.e. Opposite Party No.4(four) is proved through the documentary evidence annexed in the case record. It is also proved through the copy of Manufacturer's warranty, that the said mobile set was under warranty period for twelve months. Again, the service job sheets filed by the Complainant clearly telling about the frequent occurance of defect in the mobile set, mentioning the nature of complaint. From the copy of replacement note, it is also proved that, the Opposite Party No.2(two) had replaced the defective mobile with a new one of same model on Dt.04/06/2012. Copy of E-mail also telling about the frequent communication of the Complainant through E-mail with the Opposite Party No.1(one). The Opposite Parties were also neither contested in this case to counter that, there is no manufacturing defect in the said mobile nor returned the hand sets to the Complainant after complete repair. They have not filed their version and also failed to adduce any evidence before the Forum, that there is no manufacturing defect in the said phone. This clearly shows that they are will fully dis obeying the orders of the court.
The defect occurred in the said mobile frequently which the Complainant made aware to the Opposite Party within the warranty period, which was not replace or rectified by the Opposite Parties in due course of time amounts to Utter deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties to the customer. Again the related neglect on part of Opposite Parties shown brings weight to the grievance of the Complainant and the forum views that if the Opposite Parties are not giving due regard to a Court proceeding, what kind of attention, they would be giving to common man. Thus the version of the Complainant is accepted.
The problem cited by the Complainant are covered under the warranty service as it is seen from the copy of manufacturer's warranty filed with the record which clearly shows that the set is covered for a whole year and the service job sheets clearly shows that the problems accruing within one year of the purchase of the Mobile phone. So it can be presumed that the complainant's problem occurred before this and well within the warranty period.
Due to these act and attitude of the Opposite Parties and intentional delay to rectify the defect, the Complainant has not only suffered mentally but also got financial loss and physical harassment and the purpose of purchasing of mobile set by him also been frustrated.
Hence gross negligence and deficiency in service lies with the Opposite Parties and they are liable jointly and severally to compensate the Complainant from what he suffered. In these circumstances, the complaint petition is allowed.
-O R D E R-
The Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to pay to the Complainant the original purchase price of mobile set i.e. Rs. 9,550/-(Rupees nine thousand five hundred fifty)only with interest @ 9%(nine percent) from the date of Purchase i.e. Dt.26/10/2011 and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only as compensation for negligence and deficiency in service and litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant with one month from the date of order i.e.14/08/2013, failing which the total awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12%(twelve percent) per annum till the final realization of amount.
According the case is allowed and disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
Sd/- Sd/-
I agree, I agree,
(Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak) ( Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
P r e s i d e n t. M e m b e r.
