Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order : 31.05.2016

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To direct the opposite parties to refund the price of Mobile Hand Set i.e. Rs. 8,231/-.
2. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only ) as litigation costs.
3. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 80,000/- ( Rs. Eighty thousand only as compensation.

2. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

The complainant has filed this complaint on Performa stating therein that his son Nitesh Kumar has purchased a mobile hand set of Nokia on 20.06.2011 after cash payment of Rs. 8,231/- from opposite party no. 1. The set was defective and as such it was handed over to opposite party no. 2 during warranty period for removal of the defect on 23.07.2011 but the defect was not removed. The set was again given to opposite party on 24.08.2011 for removing the defect but the defect could not be removed due to which complainant has to suffer much.

It has been stated that the purchaser is a minor so the affidavit has been sworn by the complainant.

It appears from the record that opposite party no. 1 and 2 has filed Vakalatnama while opposite party no. 3 did not appear in this case despite service of notice and hence the service was declared valid as will appear from order sheet dated 04.10.2012.

On behalf of opposite party no. 1 a written statement has been filed stating therein that opposite party no. 1 is a registered shop and engaged in selling the mobile hand set of opposite party no. 3 i.e. NOKIA DEALERS PVT. LTD.

It has been further stated that allegation of the complainant against opposite parties are vague, baseless and with malafide intention.

It has been further stated that complainant has not been able to establish the deficiency of opposite parties in service and opposite party no. 1 is only authorized to sell the NOKIA PRODUCT service warranty through authorized Nokia service dealer. The opposite party no. 1 has further asserted that from the job sheet of the service centre it appears that the complainant has himself violated the terms and conditions of the warranty.

It appears that the complainant has himself failed to confirm to the terms and conditions of the warranty agreement and acted in a pretentious manner by improper handling and use of the mobile.

It is the case of the complainant that his son has purchased a mobile from opposite party no. 1 after paying Rs. 8,231/- to opposite party no. 1 as will appear from annexure – 1.

It is further case of the complainant that after purchasing the same it became defective and as such he has submitted the same to opposite party no. 2 for removing the defect but the defect could not be removed.

The opposite party no. 1 has stated that the set became defective due to improper handling of the same for which complainant is liable.

From careful perusal of annexure – 1 it is crystal clear that son of the complainant has purchased the hand set vide annexure – 1 from opposite party no. 1. The aforesaid set was handed over to opposite party no. 1 for removing the defect but the defect could not be removed as stated by the complainant.

From judicial record it transpires that there was talk of compromise between the parties as will appear from order sheet dated 02.09.2014.

However there was no compromise and the case was contested by the parties.

From bare perusal of annexure – 2 it is crystal clear that mobile was defective. The repeated attempt of the complainant to deposit the set to opposite party no. 2 for repair itself proves that the set was defective.

Opposite party no. 1 being the agent of opposite party no. 3 is responsible for any omission and commission of opposite party no. 3 and opposite party no. 2 being service centre is also responsible for any omission and the commission of opposite party no. 3.

It appears that opposite party no. 3 has supplied defective set which was sold by opposite party no. 1 and the defect could not removed by opposite party no. 2 hence all the opposite parties are jointly and severally responsible for deficiency.

Hence we direct the opposite party no. 1 to return the price of the aforesaid mobile set which he sold to the complainant’s son vide annexure – 1 i.e. Rs. 8,231/- within the period of one month from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite party no. 1 will have to pay an interest @ 12% on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 8,231/-.

Opposite party no. 1 is further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of one month.

It is needless to say that after paying the aforesaid amount to the complainant, the opposite party no. 1 is under liberty to realize the aforesaid amount in proportion from opposite party no. 2 and 3.

It goes without saying that if the mobile is in the custody of complainant then he will return the mobile set at the time of receiving the amount.

Accordingly this complaint stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

                             Member                                                                              President