BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 152/2008 Filed on 11.07.2008

Dated : 15.07.2010

Complainant:

Shiroz. A.R, S/o Abdul Rasheed, Yaseen, T.C 41/1731, Manacaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Rajesh. R)

Opposite party:

The proprietor, Powerlink, T.C 14/1017, Opp: Trivandrum Club, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Nair Ajay Krishnan)

This O.P having been heard on 09.07.2010, the Forum on 15.07.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Complainant bought a mobile phone having brand name N73 of Nokia during his visit to his father-in-law at U.A.E. That at the time of purchase on 31.05.2007 a warranty card was issued to him covering a period of maximum 13 months. That on 10.02.2008 a minor defect occurred in functioning of the key pad of the mobile and he consulted the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party told that it was only a minor defect. That the complainant reminded the opposite party that the warranty for the mobile will be available only in U.A.E and if it is a major defect which needs excessive amount and the seal of warranty to be broken then the repair will be done at U.A.E where his father-in-law was residing. That the 1^st opposite party assured the complainant that it is only a minor defect and the seal of warranty need not be broken. Believing on the assurance the complainant entrusted the mobile to the 1^st opposite party for the ratification of the defect. That on 12.02.2008 the mobile was returned to him but even before he reached his home back the same defect occurred again and he took the phone back to the 1^st opposite party and again the 1^st opposite party assured that it is only a minor defect and will be rectified in a day. Meanwhile they charge Rs. 550/- for the repair. But till now the 1^st opposite party had not repaired the mobile phone and given it back to the complainant instead when the complainant approached them he was told that the mobile cannot be repaired and also demanded an exorbitant amount from the complainant as service charge. That the warranty available to complainant is also not available to the complainant due to the irresponsible act of the opposite party and they are not giving the mobile back to the complainant as well. That there is a clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party which caused heavy loss to this complainant. The complainant issued an advocate notice on 13.03.2008 which was received by the opposite party on 15.03.2008, but no reply was given till date. Hence this complaint.

The opposite party in this case filed version. In the version opposite party submitted that the complainant brought a mobile hand set to the service centre of the opposite party stating that he had purchased the set from UAE and the phone lock up was not responding and the key of the mobile phone do not work. The opposite party on verification of the details of the hand set with the manufacturers informed the complainant that the instrument was not entitled to any warranty condition in India as per the terms and conditions of purchase. The complainant accepted the same and asked the opposite party to repair the hand set. It was noticed that the problem was with the software hence the same was upgraded and the hand set was returned to the complainant to his satisfaction. The bill amount was paid by the complainant. Later the complainant brought the mobile hand set to the service centre of the opposite party stating that the phone lock up and the key of the mobile phone was not responding. On testing the hand set it was seen that there was something wrong with the Integrated circuit of the keypad and it will have to be replaced along with other connected components. This fact was informed to the complainant and he asked the opposite party to do the necessary repairs. The same was accordingly repaired for a cost of Rs. 1,450/- and the same was informed to the complainant but till date he has not come to collect the same despite a notice dated 28.05.2008 by registered post having been sent and received by him. The allegation in the complaint are baseless and not true to facts. Complainant has not sustained any loss due to any wilful negligence on the part of the opposite party and this opposite party is in no way liable to compensate the complainant.

Complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he was examined as PW1. Complainant was cross examined by the opposite party. From his side 6 documents were produced as Exts. P1 to P6. There is no evidence from the side of opposite party.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?

    

Points (i) & (ii):- Complainant bought the mobile phone from UAE. At the time of entrusting the mobile phone to the opposite party for repairing the complainant duly informed the opposite party that the warranty for the phone will be available only in UAE and if it is a major defect which needs excessive amount and the seal of warranty to be broken, then the repair will be done at UAE where his father-in-law was residing. Then the opposite party told that it was only a minor defect. On that assurance the complainant entrusted the phone to the opposite party on 10.02.2008. Opposite party returned the mobile phone on 12.02.2008, but the same defect occurred again and he again entrusted the opposite party to repair it. But till now the opposite party did not repair the mobile and returned to the complainant and the opposite party has demanded exorbitant amount from the complainant as service charge. Main contention of the opposite party is that they have done the repair work with the consent of the complainant. The repair work was completed and the charge for the work is Rs. 1,450/-. Complainant was informed of the same, but he did not collect the same, inspite of a registered notice dated 28.05.2008 sent in his address and received by him. To prove his contention the complainant has produced 6 documents and the documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P6. Ext. P1 is the warranty card dated 31.05.2007. As per this document the mobile phone has 13 months warranty from the date of warranty card. The defect occurred on 10.02.2008 i.e; within the warranty period. Ext. P2 is the job sheet dated 12.02.2008 issued by the opposite party. Ext. P3 is the copy of the advocate notice dated 11.03.2008. Ext. P4 is the postal receipt of Ext. P3. Exts. P5 & P6 are the documents issued by postal department regarding the delivery of advocate notice to the opposite party. As per this document the notice has been delivered to the opposite party on 15.03.2008. In this case opposite party stated that they repaired the mobile phone and intimated the matter to the complainant on 28.05.2008 through registered notice, but the complainant never turned up to receive it. Opposite party has produced the notice and its postal receipt. As per the notice the date is seen as 28.05.2008. But as per postal receipt the notice was sent on 28.07.2008, i.e; after filing the complaint before this Forum. The date of the complaint is 23.07.2008.

As per the assurance given by the opposite party that the defect was only minor defect, the complainant entrusted the mobile phone to the opposite party for repairing. The mobile phone has warranty in UAE only. In that circumstance, if there is a major costly repairing work, the opposite party should have informed the matter to the complainant or they ought not accept the same for repairing. In this case there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party. For that irresponsible attitude of the opposite party the complainant has lost his warranty benefit from the manufacturer. Otherwise the complainant could repair the work in UAE without any cost, since the defect occurred within the warranty period. The complainant entrusted the mobile phone to the opposite party on 12.02.2008, but till now the same has been within the custody of the opposite party. Now everyone knows the importance of a mobile phone in day-to-day affairs. Due to the non-availability of the mobile phone the complainant has definitely suffered inconvenience. The act of the opposite party definitely caused mental agony and financial loss also to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the opposite party is directed to return the mobile phone in working condition with the assurance that the defect will not be re-occurred within 90 days. Opposite party shall also pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,500/- as costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order, otherwise 9% annual interest shall be paid to the entire amount.

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, this the 15^th day of July 2010.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 152/2008

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Shiroz. A.R

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Warranty card dated 31.05.2007

P2 - Service job sheet dated 12.02.2008

P3 - Copy of advocate notice dated 11.03.2008

P4 - Postal receipt dated 13.03.2008

P5&P6- Postal dept. regarding the delivery of advocate notice to the

opposite party.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb