IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

SRI. C.V. MARGOOR,PRESIDENT

O R D E R

1. This complaint filed by Sri. M.B. Vittala s/o. late M.K. Belliappa, aged 64 years, resident of 7^thHosakote Village, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu District to direct the opponent Branch Manager Poorvika Mobile, College Road, Madikeri to pay Rs.3,350/- purchase price of mobile, travelling and other expenses of Rs.8,500/- and Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony in all Rs.14,850/-.

2. Facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased Nokia 3310 key pad mobile on 19/10/2018 from the opponent for a sum of Rs.3,350/-.  The said mobile was not working due to problem in memory card slot.  Hence, he went to the opponent shop on the next day of purchase i.e. 20/10/2018 then the opponent told that eight to ten days required for repairs as they have to send it to Nokia Company situated at Mysore. The opponent further told that if you go to Nokia Company, Mysore they would attend the repair on the same day.  On 24/10/2018 the complainant went to Nokia Company situated at Mysore and showed the mobile along with bill but their reply was that  he has to hand over the mobile to the shop where he has purchased.

3. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 26/10/2018 the complainant went to the opponent shop and informed the answer given by the responsible officials of Nokia Company situated at Mysore.  On the same day the opponent has collected the mobile from the complainant along with box and made endorsement on the back side of receipt for receiving mobile.  The opponent has informed the complainant that 15 to 20 days required for its repair.  The complainant has gone to the shop of opponent after expiry of 20 days but there was no response from them.  The complainant after one month from the date of handing over the mobile has sent a registered letter to the opponent for refund of the purchase price of the mobile stating that yesterday he has purchased a new mobile.  The opponent did not respond to the letter sent by the complainant hence, this complaint.

4. The opponent after the service of notice appeared through its learned counsel and filed written version admitting that the complainant has purchased Nokia 3310 key pad mobile from their shop on 19/10/2018.  However the opponent has denied rest of the allegations that on the next day the complainant came to the shop and complained with regard to non-functioning of the memory card and on their suggestions he went to Mysore to get replacement of the mobile.  The opponent admitted that on 26/10/2018 the complainant gave his set for replacement and thereafter the opponent has sent the same to the Nokia office at Bengalur on 27/10/2018.  The opponent got the replaced a hand set on 27/11/2018 but the complainant refused to receive the same.  The opponent is ready to hand over the replacement hand set to the opponent.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any damages asked in the complaint.

5. The complainant filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and got marked exhibits P1 to P3 documents.  On behalf of opponent inspite of opportunity he did not care to file affidavit evidence or marked any documents.

6. We heard the arguments advanced by the complainant and learned counsel representing the opponent and the points that would arise for determination are as under;

1. Whether the complainant proves that the opponent has sold defective mobile hand set to him?

2. Is complainant entitled to the relief sought for?

3. What order?

7. Our findings on the above points is as under;

• Point No.1:- In the Affirmative
• Point No.2:- In the partly Affirmative
• Point No.3:- As per final order for the below

R E A S O N S

8. The opponent has not disputed purchase of Nokia 3310 key pad mobile hand set by the complainant from their shop situated at Madikeri under exhibit P1 tax invoice dated 19/10/2018 for Rs.3,350/-.  Further the opponent has not disputed that the complainant has handed over the purchased mobile set for replacement or repairs on 26/10/2018.  On the back side of exhibit P1 it is mentioned that the complainant has handed over the Nokia 3310 mobile with problem of memory card slot.  The endorsement marked as exhibit P2 and it is clearly mentioned that 15 to 20 days required for service.  On perusal of the written version and exhibit P2 endorsement the complainant has proved that the Nokia 3310 key pad mobile set sold by the opponent was defective.

9. It is mentioned in exhibit P2 that the complainant has returned back the mobile hand set for service or replacement on 26/10/2018 within a week from the date of purchase.  The complainant marked exhibit P3 letter sent to the opponent stating that inspite of his repeated request even after expiry of 20 days there was no proper response for replacement of mobile as such he was compelled to issue this letter.  The complainant marked exhibit P3A postal acknowledgement for having received exhibit P3 letter by the opponent on 24/11/2018.  The opponent has not given reply to exhibit P3 letter though received on 24/11/2018.  This complaint has been filed on 30/11/2018 six days after receipt of exhibit P3 letter by the opponent.

10. The complainant in reply to the arguments of opponent submitted that after filing complaint before this Forum in the morning on the same day afternoon he received phone call from the opponent to collect his mobile.  The complainant in exhibit P3 letter dated 23/11/2018 mentioned that on 22/11/2018 he has purchased another mobile hand set.  The opponent in the written version paragraph no.5 pleaded that they got the replacement hand set on 27/11/2018 but the complainant refused to receive the same.  The opponent did not care to give reply to exhibit P3 letter though received on 24/11/2018.  The opponent has received the replacement hand set on 27/11/2018 three days after receiving exhibit P3 letter. It was the duty of the opponent to send an intimation to the complainant after expiry of 20 days that they want another week time to hand over the repaired or new mobile handset.  Therefore, the act of opponent not giving any response to oral and exhibit P3 written request amounts to deficiency in service.

11. The complainant has already purchased another mobile after expiry of more than 25 days from the date of handing over mobile hand set to the opponent.  The averments made in the complaint that on the suggestion of opponent he went to Mysore for replacement of mobile hand set cannot be disbelieved since he has mentioned the same in exhibit P3 letter dated 23/11/2018.  All these events have taken place within one month from the date of purchase of mobile.  Therefore, the complainant might have spent Rs.1,000/- to go to Mysore and Rs.2,000/- to approaching the opponent frequently to get back his mobile.  The said amount includes travelling expenses and mental agony suffered by the complainant.  The complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this proceedings in addition to the cost of the mobile a sum of Rs.3,350/-.  For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following ;

O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by Sri. M.B. Vittala s/o. M.K. Belliappa is partly allowed directing the opponent to pay a sum of Rs.11,350/- to the complainant within two months from the date of order.  In case the opponent fails to comply with the order it carries interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 01/12/2018 till the date of realization.
2. Furnish copy of order to the complainant and opposite party at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 16^thday of MARCH, 2019)

                                                      (C.V. MARGOOR)

                                                          PRESIDENT 

                                                    (M.C. DEVAKUMAR)

                                                             MEMBER