Date of Filing:17.05.2007<br /> Date of Order: 03.01.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1003 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> Umesh Babu Patel,<br /> S/o Late Puttaswamy Gowda,<br /> No.39/3, 13th Cross, 6th Main, <br /> Malleswaram, Bangalore-03. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. The Proprietor, <br /> Concepts Inc,<br /> No.LG-3, “The Pavillion”<br /> No.62 & 63, M.G. Road,<br /> Bangalore-01.<br /> <br /> 2. The Manager,<br /> Concepts Inc,<br /> No.LG-3, “The Pavillion”<br /> No.62 & 63, M.G. Road,<br /> Bangalore-01.<br /> <br /> 3. Sri Raj,<br /> Sales Executive,<br /> Concepts Inc,<br /> No.LG-3, “The Pavillion”<br /> No.62 & 63, M.G. Road,<br /> Bangalore-01. <br /> <br /> 4. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> (Nokia Telecom SEZ) <br /> SIP COT Industrial Park,<br /> Phase III AI, Sri Perambudur-602105,<br /> Tamilnadu. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for replacement of the defective 6300 Nokia handset.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant has purchased a New 6300 Nokia Handset from the opposite parties on 10/3/2007 for a sum of Rs. 12,500/-. The copy of the bill is produced. Opposite parties issued warranty. The complainant used the handset in accordance with the instructions given in the manual. However, on starting the conversation over the mobile phone the handset started getting heated up, due to which he could not used the handset. Complainant contacted the opposite parties and explained them the problem and requested to replace the defective handset. Complainant learnt that the mobile is failure in the market. The opposite parties have not given replacement as promised. Complainant informed that the defective handset was sent to Japan for repair. Opposite parties have not taken any steps to replace the handset. Legal notice was issued through advocate calling upon the opposite parties to replace the handset. In spite of notice, opposite parties have not taken any action to replace the handset. Hence, the complaint. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed defense version stating that, it is true that the complainant has purchased Nokia handset on 10/3/2007 for Rs.12,500/-. They have also admitted that warranty card was issued for a period of one year. It is submitted that instrument was mishandled by the complainant and the same was rectified by the opposite parties and intimated the complainant to take back the instrument. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. For all these reasons stated above, the opposite parties requested to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties are filed. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:-<br /> 1. Whether there was deficiency of service on the<br /> part of the opposite parties? <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for <br /> replacement of the handset? <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. It is an admitted case of the parties that, the complainant has purchased mobile handset from the opposite parties for Rs.12,500/- on 10/3/2007. The complainant has produced cash bill. It is also admitted fact that the complainant had handed over the handset for replacement to the opposite parties on 26/3/2007 and for that a receipt is produced. It is also admitted fact that the opposite parties stated in the defense version that the mistake or defect was rectified by the opposite parties and they intimated the complainant through telephone and requested him to take back the instrument. Therefore, by this defense version, it is very clear that the complainant has handed over the instrument to opposite parties and it is also admitted that the defect will rectify by the opposite parties. It is also admitted fact that the complainant has handed over the instrument within 15 days of the purchase from the opposite parties. Complainant has clearly stated in his affidavit that he has used the handset as per the instructions contained in the manual, but however the instrument is defective and the complainant stated that the mobile purchased by him is failure in the market. The complainant submitted that he was informed by the opposite parties that handset has been sent to Japan for repair. So, under these circumstances, it can safely be held that there was a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is entitled to get good and non-defective mobile set. Consumer Protection Act is enacted for giving better protection to the consumers. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has to safeguard interest of the consumers. The complainant has handed over the defective set within few days after purchase. This itself goes to show that the instrument purchased by the consumer is a defective instrument. Therefore, it becomes the duty and obligation of the opposite parties to replace the defective instrument with trouble free instrument. The complainant is ready to purchase the alternative mobile handset from opposite parties to the extent of the price up to Rs.12,500/-. The opposite parties shall be directed to give another new mobile handset to the complainant except mobile 6300 Nokia Handset. The complainant had already handed over the handset purchased by him to the opposite parties. Therefore, now it becomes duty of the opposite parties to give alternative new handset to the complainant. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to give a new mobile handset to the complainant in place of the handset purchased by the complainant. The price of the handset Rs.12.500/- which had been paid by the complainant shall be adjusted towards the price of the new handset. If the complainant chooses to purchase handset of worth more than Rs.12.500/- he has to pay the balance amount to the opposite parties and in case the complainant chooses to purchase mobile handset of the price less than Rs.12.500/- the opposite parties shall pay the balance amount to the complainant. <br /> <br /> 7. The complainant is entitled to Rs.500/- towards costs of the present proceedings.<br /> <br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2008.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br />