This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 27.05.2015  on perusal of the material records  and on hearing the  arguments of  Thiru.C.Senthilkumar, the counsel for the complainant  and Thiru.R.Gobi, the counsel for the opposite party  and having stood  before us for consideration, till this day the Forum  passed the following

By President, Thiru..P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

                       This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.                    

2) The gist of the  complaint filed  by the complainant  is that  he purchased  one mobile phone from the opposite party for Rs. 4000/- on 25.12.2011 and  right  from the first  month of the purchase of the said mobile phone  there was  problem  of no network coverage and when the complainant approached the opposite party he rectified it but even thereafter the problem continued.On 25.02.2013 the complainant handed over the mobile phone to the opposite party for the rectification of the defect and printed memo was issued by the opposite party to the complainant in evidence thereof.Butsubsequently the opposite party had been evading without rectifying the defect of the mobile and also without handing over the mobile phone to him.Hence the complainant prays for compensation of Rs.20,000/- from the opposite party.

3) The  gist of the written version filed by the opposite party is that he is  only a  seller/agent of the manufacture  and not the  manufacture. Mobile  handsets  and charges  are warranted only  for a period specified in the warranty card and for  any manufacturing defect   only the manufacturer is liable for the defect.  Further the opposite party received the mobile phone from the complainant on  25.02.2013 which was out of warranty period  and the opposite party  on the request of the complainant  wanted to help him and took the mobile  even  though it was  out of warranty.  The complainant  was also informed  in that regard.  The complainant  made  complaint  as no network coverage on  25.02.2013 and when the  said mobile   phone was  forwarded  to the  Authorized Service Center of  Range, the Authorized  Service Center informed  that the mobile phone is out of warranty period and hence the service is paid  one. When it was informed to the complainant  by the  opposite party he was not  ready to hear the  same and pressurized  to get  new mobile.  Further the poor network coverage happens because of the service provider and  not on handsets.  The  no network coverage may be owing to the  bad signal quality  of service provider. The network operate in different  frequencies and network operators have their own mobile towers and the poor reception  in the  handset could be  due to bad  signal strength in the locality.  At  times  the handset may  not  get proper signal if the handset was not held correctly. The antenna  inside  the handset was designed in  such a way to broadcast signal in outward direction which is  perpendicular to its axis.  So if the handset is not held in upright position it might not receive the signal  properly. The complainant  has filed his  false and vexatious complaint to get unjust gain.  The  complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

4)  The complainant  has filed his proof affidavit  reiterating  all the averments made in his complaint and filed  3  documents  which are marked as Ex.A.1 to  Ex.A.3.  The opposite party has filed his  proof affidavit in support of his defence. Written arguments have been submitted  by both the  complainant and the   opposite party.

5)   The points for Determination are:

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

                     2) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

6)POINT  NO.1:  The  main allegation of the complainant  is that the mobile  phone purchased by him from the opposite party  was having the defect of having no network coverage and for rectifying the defect handed over to the opposite  party who has  failed neither to rectify the defect nor to return the mobile.  Three documents have been filed by the complainant.  Ex.A.1 being the  tax invoice for the purchase of the mobile.  Ex.A.2 being the service request form dated 25.02.2013 and Ex.A.3 being the warranty card for the mobile.

7) The contention of the opposite party is that he is only a  retailer/agent of the manufacturer and as such for any manufacturing defect  only the manufacturer is liable. Further the mobile had been functioning properly  during warranty period of  one year and the mobile had been given for service or  rectification  of the defect beyond the warranty period and hence  when the opposite party informed the authorized service dealer he demanded  for paid up service and when it was informed to the complainant he was not  ready to hear the same  but insisted for the new mobile phone.  As the opposite  party could not  comply with  the request of the complainant to replace the mobile phone  with a new one, the latter  has filed this complaint in a vexatious manner to get unlawful gain.  In fact the  problem in having no network coverage has nothing to do with the mobile phone and it depends upon the various facts as such as the quality of the  service provider and the different frequencies  and of the various mobile towers and the quality of the charge of the mobile phone etc.,  Further  the mobile  phone was given to the opposite party beyond the warranty period.  It was contended  on the side of the complainant  that Ex.A.2  would go to show that the set was handed over  within the warranty period as the  tick mark as  against  the  warranty column would prove.   

8) At first, It has to be found out whether the mobile phone was delivered for service within a year or beyond the warranty period.No doubt in Ex.A.2 the tick mark reveals as if it is given within the warranty period. But Ex.A.1 the tax invoice goes to show that the mobile handset was soldto the complainant by the opposite party on 25.12.2011.Thewarranty cardEx.A.3 prescribes a period of 12 months for the mobile device from the date of purchase of the handset.Therefore the warranty period of 12 months has expired on25.12.2012.Ex.A.2 the service request form reveals that the handset had been handed over to the opposite party on25.02.2013 i.ebeyond the period of warranty of 12 months.Secondly, the defect noted in Ex.A.2 is only no network coverage which may be owing to various reasons as the quality of the service provider,frequencies of mobile towers and the way of holding of the handset etc., at the time of its usage etc.,.

9) Above all as the learned counsel for the opposite party has noted many decisions in the written arguments, particularly the judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme Court in Hindustan Motors Limited –vs- N.Shiva Kumar in which it is held that  “we make  it  clear that  for the manufacturing  defects in the vehicle,  the  dealer cannot be  held liable.  The liability  must  be borne by the Manufacturer”.  Therefore no deficiency of service could be attributed to the opposite party. The complainant ought to have impleaded the manufacturer also in this complaint.  Further the complainant  ought to have agreed to pay the charges for the service of the mobile phone by the  authorized service dealer and after getting it duly serviced if the problem continued  he might have  come forward with this complaint.  Therefore, this complaint is  hastily filed in a misconceive manner against the dealer only without impleading the manufacturer of the mobile phone. There is no deficiency of service  on the part of the  opposite party-1  the dealer of the mobile phone.

10) POINT No.2:In the result, the complaint is dismissed and there is no order as to costs.

                    This order was dictated by me to the Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected  and pronounced by me on this  11th   day of  JUNE  2015.

MEMBER -I                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

List of documents on the side of the complainant:-

List of documents on the side of the   Opposite party :    NIL

MEMBER -I                                                                                         PRESIDENT