BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C.No.54/2007 Dated: 29..11..2008
Complainant:
Ravikrishnan. N.R, Advocate, 101#N.S.P Nagar, Kesavadasapuram – 695 004.
Opposite party:
Proprietor, Mobile World, P.R.R.A-114, opp. G.G. Hospital, Murinjapalam, Medical College – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
This O.P having been heard on 30..10..2008, the Forum on 29..11..2008 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The complainant had purchased a Nokia-7610 mobile phone from the opposite party on 19..01..2007 and from 04..02..2007 the phone became defective, the charge of the battery drained out in 8 hours, the sound recording, bluetooth, ringtones vibration and alarm became functionless. The complainant approached the opposite party on 05..02..2007 and as per the instruction of the opposite party the complainant entrusted the phone with Nokia Care Centre and on inspection they informed the complainant that the defects were major and it would take more than 2 weeks for repairing the same. As the new phone had major defects and since it had become defective within one month of purchase, the complainant had sent a registered notice to opposite party on 06..02..2007 to either replace the phone or to refund the price for which there was no response. As the defects persisted, the complainant checked the battery No.and IMEI No.by replacing the battery and the phone worked properly. The fact was informed to the authorised centre of Nokia for which they had informed that such things will never happen in a new phone. As per their information itself, the complainant checked the manufacturing date using the special code and the date was shown as 02..06..2005 but in the package of the phone, the manufacturing date was mentioned as November 2006. Instead of a new phone, the opposite party has sold one and a half year old used phone as a new phone in new packet which amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint for refund of Rs.9,100/- along with compensation and costs. 2. Opposite party remains ex-parte.
3. Complainant has filed affidavits and has been examined as PW1, marked Exts. P1 to P5 on his side. He has not been cross examined and hence his affidavits stand unchallenged. 4. The points that would arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant has been supplied with an old phone instead of a new one? Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
5. Points (i) to (iii): The purchase of Nokia 7610 from the opposite party on 19..01..2007 by paying an amount of Rs.9,100/- is proved by Ext.P1 issued by the opposite party. The month of manufacture and the month of import are mentioned as November 2006, in Ext.P2, which the complainant swears as that of the box of the phone delivered to him. The complainant has alleged that he has been supplied with an old and used mobile phone. According to the complainant, the code provided by the Nokia Care Centre to check the manufacturing date was not for the same but was that of checking the date of software release. And on the website of Nokia phone it was stated that *#92702689# is the code for checking the date of manufacturing and accordingly the complainant used the same in his phone and he could realise that it is not even functioning in his phone which the complainant states is due to the fact that the phone supplied to him is an old and used one. Ext.P5 series produced by the complainant consists of the Nokia codes tips and tricks. By the code provided by Nokia Care, the complainant submits that the date is seen as 02..06..2005 which evidences that his phone has been manufactured before 06/2005 since the software could be released only after that. These submissions are not challenged by the opposite party. The complainant's deposition stands uncontroverted. Moreover when the opposite party has not contested the case or ever cared to appear before the Forum to deny the allegations levelled against them we have no difficulty to hold that the allegations in the complaint as true. The fact that the mobile phone supplied to the complainant is defective has been proved conclusively with documents. The opposite party has supplied a defective phone besides the fact that an old and used phone has been supplied to the complainant. Such fraudulent supply of different equipment than ordered amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
6. In the light of the above discussions we find that the complainant is entitled to refund of the price of the phone along with compensation of Rs.3,000/- and an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.
In the result, the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.9,100/- (Rupees Nine thousand one hundred only) along with a compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards costs to the complainant within a period of one month. On acceptance of the above mentioned amounts, the complainant shall return the mobile phone in dispute to the opposite party.
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, on this the 29th day of November, 2008.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.
ad.
C.C.No.54/2007
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness
PW1 : Ravikrishnan. N.R
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of receipt No.2140 dated 19..02..2007. P2 : " details connected with month of manufacture, MRP etc. P3 : " mobile set P4 : Copy of advocate notice dated 06..02..2007 P4(a) : Original receipt No.RLAD E-8574 dated 6/2/07 P4(b) : Original acknowledgment card
P5 : Photocopy of Nokia codes Tips and Tricks exracted from Internet
III. Opposite party's witness: NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents: NIL
PRESIDENT.
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
