Date of Filing: 16.06.2008<br /> Date of Order:15.09.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1321 OF 2008<br /> Dr. K. Rohith<br /> S/o. K. Rama Murthy<br /> No. 41/5, 1st Floor, 2nd Block<br /> 20th Main, Rajajinagar<br /> Bangalore 560 010 Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> 1. The Manager<br /> Nokia Care, Clarity Cells<br /> No. 342, Dr. Rajkumar Road<br /> 6th Block, Rajajinagar<br /> Bangalore 560 010<br /> <br /> 2. The Care Manager<br /> Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.<br /> 4-F, Tower A & B Sector 25 A<br /> Cyber Green, DLF Cyber City<br /> Gurgaon – 122 002<br /> Haryana, India Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act requesting to direct the opposite parties to replace the Nokia N-95 (8 GB) handset with a new one or to refund amount of Rs. 28,500/- with interest and also compensation. <br /> 2. The facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased mobile handset under Invoice dated 21.01.2008 for an amount of Rs. 28,500/-. Complainant got shocked and surprised in the end of March 2008 when the mobile was not properly working. He contacted opposite party No. 1 and handed over set for correction. Handset was still under warranty period. On 20.04.2008 he contacted the office of opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 1 informed that set is not repaired at Chennai and asked to come on 22.04.2008. Again on 22.04.2008 complainant again contacted the opposite party No. 1. Opposite party delivered mobile without repair. Inspite of several requests and demands opposite party No. 1 has failed to repair the set. Complainant is a practicing Doctor. He had stored around 1,200 important business / patient telephone numbers. The Nokia Care Centre at Bangalore is run under a totally non-professional way with ill trained staff. Complainant suffered mental agony and hardship. He had sent a legal notice. Opposite parties have not complied the demand notice nor replied to the notice. This is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint.<br /> 3. Notice issued to opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 remained absent inspite of service of notice and opposite party No. 2 appeared through counsel and defence version filed contending that complainant is not entitled to claim damages. Complaint is not maintainable in law or on the facts. It is submitted that opposite parties are always willing to perform its obligation under terms of warranty and redress the grievances of the complainant and is still willing to service/repair the handset to the satisfaction of complainant as per the terms of warranty. Hence, the question of replacement of handset/refund of the sale price and/or compensation does not arise.<br /> 4. Affidavit evidences are filed. Arguments are heard.<br /> 5. The point for consideration is:<br /> “Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?”<br /> 6. I have gone through the complaint and documents.<br /> 7. The complainant has produced Invoice to show that he has purchased Nokia N 95 (8 GB) handset for Rs. 28,500/- on 21.01.2008. As per the case of the complainant the handset worked properly till end of March 2008. In the end of March 2008 the mobile handset was not properly working, with display not working and calls and messages going automatically to the other mobiles. He handed over the set for correction. He has produced Service Job Sheet. The fault was reported to the Company in the job service sheet. The set was given to the service centre for repairs on 03.04.2008. The target date for delivery was on 20.04.2008. The complainant submitted that on 20.04.2008 he contacted the office of opposite party No. 1 and it was informed that set was not repaired and he was asked to come on 22.04.2008 and on 22.04.2008 first opposite party delivered the set to the complainant without repairs. The complainant made several requests and reminders. Inspite of it the opposite parties have failed to repair the same. The complainant is a qualified medical Doctor. He is practicing medicine. According to him he has stored around 1,200 business/patient telephone numbers and he was not advised by the opposite parties regarding taking up of a back up of telephone numbers which are important to the complainant. The complainant submitted that Nokia Care Centre at Bangalore is run under a totally non-professional way with ill trained staff not even knowing to handle the consumer complaints. Ultimately, the complainant has sent a legal notice on 03.05.2008 by registered post. Notice copy is produced. The complainant has also produced Under Certificate of Posting and postal acknowledgement. It is the case of the complainant that inspite of service of legal notice the opposite parties have failed to attend his grievance. The opposite parties have not replied to the notice. Therefore, this trend or attitude on the part of the opposite parties is definitely a deficiency in service. Opposite party is a multinational Company with great reputation. It is the duty and obligation of the opposite parties to satisfy the customers. Product of the opposite parties should be defect free. Complainant who had purchased set by paying Rs. 28,500/- should be happy to use the product without any defects. But, in this case within three months of the purchase trouble started and he informed the matter to the opposite parties and handed over the set for service. Inspite of that the opposite parties could not provide good service and the handset was returned to the complainant without carrying any repairs or service. Therefore, the complainant was forced to take legal action under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party No. 2 in its defence submitted that it is willing and ready to service/repair handset to the satisfaction of the complainant. With this commitment/obligation of the opposite parties it becomes the duty of the opposite parties to see that mobile handset purchased by the complainant should be free from any defect and it should work to the full satisfaction of the customer. Request of the complainant that replacement of handset with new one or to refund the Invoice bill amount of Rs. 28,500/- is quite justified and reasonable. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation. It is enacted to safeguard better interests of the consumers. The protection of the consumer is need of the hour. The complainant is a Consumer under the Act is definitely entitled to get the relief from the hands of Consumer Fora. The complainant has prayed Rs. 1,25,000/- as damages for loss of professional business and mental agony in the complaint. On the facts and circumstances of the case we feel this is not the case to grant damages without there being any proper proof and evidence to show that the complainant suffered loss of professional business. The learned advocate for the complainant submitted during the course of argument that instead of replacing the handset the opposite parties may be directed to refund the Invoice bill amount. I feel this submission is quite just, fair and justified. Therefore, taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 8. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund Invoice Bill amount of Rs. 28,500/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 30 days in that case the amount carries interest at 12% p.a. from the date of this order till payment/realisation. <br /> 9. The complainant has to surrender the handset to the opposite parties after receiving the amount.<br /> 10. The complainant is entitled for Rs. 2,000/- from the opposite parties towards costs of the present proceedings.<br /> 11. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 12. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br />