BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, President
And
Smt.C.Preethi, Member
Thursday the 8th day of March, 2007
C.C. No.9/2007
D.Sreenivasulu, Hindu,
Aged about 41 years, Advocate, Kurnool. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. The proprietor, M/s. Sreenus Mobile World,
Shop No.28,1st Floor, U con plaza, Kurnool.
2. M/s. Nokia India Private Limited,
2nd Floor, Commercial Plaza, Raddisson Hotel, N.H.8, Mahipalpur, NEW DELHI-37. …Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, and Sri.C.V.Sreenivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite Party No.1 and opposite party No.2 called absent set exparte and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Smt. C. Preethi, Member)
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P. Act., 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties to return the cost of the mobile hand set Rs.12,300/- with 24% interest, Rs.10,000/- as compensation, costs of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that complaint had purchased a Nokia mobile hand set model No.6255 R/M ESN/IMEI No.03310272322 for Rs.12,300/- from opposite party No.1 vide bill No.2678. However after 15 days time from the date of purchase it started giving trouble and on approaching opposite party No.1 he promised to rectify the problems shortly, thereafter 5 months passed the said defects continued in the said set. After a long period the service center personal after its inspection opined as irreparable and the complainant caused legal notice dt:10-11-06 on opposite parties demanding for return of cost of hand set The opposite party No.2 replied stating that they will proceed into the matter but till now no suitable action is taken, hence, the complainant resorted to the forum for redressal.
3. The complainant in support of its case relied on the following documents viz:(1)purchase bill dt:10-01-06 issued by opposite party No.1 for Rs.12,300/-(2)office copy of legal notice at 10-11-06 addressed to opposite parties No.1&2 along with two postal receipts, acknowledgement and courier receipt.(3)Reply notice dt:19-12-06 of opposite party (4)letter dt:03-01-07 of complainant to opposite party No.2 in response to Ex.A3 (5)services job sheet along with estimate letter. (6) terms & conditions of limited warrantly at page No.98 of user’s guide & (7) defective cell phone purchased under Ex.A1.
4. The opposite parties 1&2 inspite of notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant did not neither appeared nor contested the case & remained absent through out the case proceedings.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled to:?
6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased Ex.A7 Nokia Mobile Hand set model No.6255 from opposite party No.1 vide Ex.A1 for Rs.12,300/- after 15 days of its purchase it was not working properly. The defects were pointed to opposite party No.1 and handed over the said set to opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.1 instead of replacing the hand set, sent the said set for rectification to service center. The said service center returned the said set vide Ex.A5 stating that liquid damaged and it is irreparable. The complainant there after on 10-11-06 caused legal notice vide Ex.A2 to opposite parties No.1&2 stating the same grievances that the Nokia model No.6255 purchased by the complainant is not working and as the service center endorsed irreparable to the said set, hence requested to return the cost of the irreparable hand set within seven days. The Ex.A3 is the reply notice dt:19-12-06 of opposite party to the complainant’s letter dt:11-12-06 requesting to furnish (1)copy of invoice and (2) job sheet number along with date and the complainant vide Ex.A4 furnished the required details of Ex.A3 and once again requested to return the cost of the irreparable set. The Ex.A6 are the terms & conditions of limited warranty at pg No.98 of user’s guide, warranty No.1 says that the limited warranty provided for the product shall be twelve (12) month from the date of purchase of the product. The complainant submit that as the said mobile hand set started giving troubles within 15 days from the date of purchase, it comes with the limited warranty provide under Ex.A6. Hence, he is entitled for return of cost of mobile set.
7. The very fact that the opposite parties did not prefer to contest the case inspite of service of notice of this forum shows that it did not dispute the facts. The Ex.A5 job sheet says that liquid damaged and it is irreparable, hence it is admitted fact that the said set had certain defects, which could not be rectified inspite of being repaired and it is irreparable. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that hand set was suffering from inherent defects.
8. Therefore, in there circumstances discussed above their appears a careless conduct of opposite parties with supine indifference in not returning the said set after rectifying its defects nor returned the costs of said set to the complainant which is sufficient for the complainant to suffer immense embarrassment & mental agony for which the opposite parties has to compensate by paying Rs.1,000/- as compensation. Hence, thereby the defects in the said set has been made out and hence there remains every bonafidies in the complainant’s case and there by his entitleness for return of cost of cost of said hand set. As the complainant was driver to the forum for redressal the complainant is entitled to costs of Rs.1,000/-.
9. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly & severally to pay to the complainant Rs.12,300/- towards defect mobile hand set which is sold to the complainant on 10-01-06, after receipt of the said set (Ex.A7) from the complainant along with Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs within a month from the date of receipt of this order. Return the Ex.A7 to the complainant for returning the same to opposite party for compliance of orders.
Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench on this the 8th day of March, 2007.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Bill, dt:10-01-2006 for purchase of Nokia Cell Phone by
complainant for Rs.12,300/-.
Ex.A2 office copy of legal notice Dt:10-11-2006 addressed to opposite
party No.1 & 2 along with two postal receipts, one
acknowledgement and courier receipt.
Ex.A3 Reply notice, Dt:19-12-2006 of opposite party to complainant’s
letter Dt:11-12-06.
Ex.A4 letter, Dt:03-01-07 for complainant to the opposite party No.2 in
response to Ex.A3.
Ex.A5 service job sheet along with estimate letter.
Ex.A6 The terms & conditions of Limited warranty at page No.98 of user’s
Guide.
Ex.A7 Defective cell phone purchased under Ex.A1.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. D.Sreenivasulu, Hindu, Aged about 41 years, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.
3. M/s. Nokia India Pvt., Ltd.,2nd Floor, Commercial Plaza, Raddisson
Hotel,N.H.8, Mahipalpur,NEW DELHI-37.
4. Sri. C.V.Sreenivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
