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:-
Exhibits | Date | Description |
Ex.A.1 | 25.12.2011 | Tax Invoice of the opposite party. |
Ex.A.2 | 25.02.2013 | Service request form. |
Ex.A.3 | … | Warranty card. |
List of documents on the side of the Opposite party : NIL
MEMBER -I PRESIDENT