COMPLAINT FILED ON:29.11.2011
DISPOSED ON:27.08.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
27th DAY OF AUGUST 2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINANT | J.Anthony Raj S/o Joseph Reddy, Aged about 56 years, R/at No.118, K.Channappa Cross, Samapanna Layout, Kamanahalli Main Road, Bangalore-560 084. In person V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTIES | 1. Univer Cell, Telecommunications India Private Limited, No.50/2, Kammanahalli Main Road, Opposite Niligiries, St Thomas Town Post, Bangalore-84. 2. Regional Office: No.1 and 2 3rd Main Road, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-20. Adv:Sri.B.Pradeep 3. Nokia Care No.514/A, 80 Feet Road, Opp-ICICI Bank Near Nokia Store Indra Nagar, Bangalore-38. In person. |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant in person filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as OPs) to pay an amount of Rs.28,125/- on the allegation of deficiency in service.
2. The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:-
The complainant purchased X6 Nokia 8GB mobile set on 26.12.2010 for a sum of Rs.14,625/- from OP1 the Authorized Dealer, 15 days earlier to this complaint the said mobile screen operation button fell down and the complainant approached OP1 on the same day. OP1 directed him to got to Nokia Customer Care Centre(OP3), accordingly the complainant approached OP3 but OP3 stated that the Service cannot be provided as there is no guarantee period and asked the complainant to approach OP1. Again the complainant approached OP1, OP1 directed to approach the Customer Care Center and the complainant approached several times the Customer Care Center and the OP1 they have not given any proper response. Hence, the complainant felt deficiency in service and claimed for refund of the cost of mobile Rs.14,625/-, for loss of Office Work Rs,8,000/-, Phone Calls Auto Charges, Rs.1,000/- Typing and other charges Rs.1,500/-, interest on the mobile cost Rs.3,000/- in all Rs.28,125/-.
3. OP3 was impleaded subsequently. OP1 and 2 are one and the same. OP1 filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable. The allegations made in the complaint are denied. The averments made in the complaint that 15 days back the mobile became screen operation button fell down and on the same day the complainant has approached OP1, are distortion of true and material facts. The very fact of 15 days after the purchase of the mobile the said button fell down itself amply reveals that the complainant himself is negligent and he cannot be benefited for his own negligence. It is denied that OP1 directed the complainant to approach OP3 and the OP3 in turn asked him to again approach the OP1 and the complainant has visited OP1 several times. It is stated that if at all any liability would arise the OP3 is liable to answer the claim of the complainant. OP1 is not liable to pay any amount. OP1 and OP2 are ready to rectify the defect. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
4. OP3 has not filed version.
5. The complainant in order to substantiate complaint averments filed affidavit evidence and additional affidavit evidence. The Customer Relation Manager of Op1 filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version
6. Arguments from both sides heard.
7. The points for our consideration in this complaint are as under:
Point No.1:-Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
Point No.2:-If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s now claimed?
Point No.3:-To What order?
8. We record our findings on the above points:
Point No.1:-Affirmative
Point No.2:-Affirmative in part
Point No.3:-As per final order.
R E A S O N S
At the outset, it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased X-6 Nokia mobile set from OP1 the Authorized Dealer on 26.12.2010 by paying an amount of Rs.14,625/-. The complainant has produced the copy of the Tax Invoice in respect of the said purchase. The grievances of the complainant are that 15 days earlier to the filing of this complaint, the said mobile set screen operation button fell down and on the same day he approached OP1 but OP1 directed him to approach OP3 and when OP3 was approached the complainant was given directed to approach the OP1 as there is no warranty period. It is stated that the complainant has visited OP1 and 3 several times but there was no proper response for attending the repairs. Thus the complainant is claiming for the refund of the amount paid for the mobile set and for other claims regarding loss of his salary by not attending the office etc. We have gone through the Tax Invoice issued by OP1 with regard to sale of the mobile set to the complainant. It is stated that the mobile handsets and chargers are warranted for a period defined by the respective manufactures against defect in material and workmanship. Further it is stated that OP1 is not giving the warranty and does not hold out any warranty of products sold. Further OP1 will not be responsible for any defective/deficient or otherwise unsatisfactory products. Any such defective or deficient goods have to be repaired only by Authorized Service Centre of the equipment manufacturer.
The learned counsel for the OP1 contended that OP1 being Authorized Dealer is not responsible for any defects in the mobile set sold, the Manufacturer is responsible for the same. There is no warranty given by OP1 and screen button fell down due to negligence of the complainant, OP1 is not responsible for the negligent act of OP1. Hence there is no any deficiency of service on the par of the OP1.
9. It may be noted that the OP1 being the Authorized Dealer of the mobile set sold to the complainant is equally responsible for defective set sold along with the Manufacturer. Manufacturer alone cannot be held responsible, OP1 has to reimburse the cost of mobile by taking back the same and he in turn can claim reimbursement from the manufacturers of the mobile set. The mobile set was purchased on 26.12.2010 this complaint is lodged on 29.11.2011 and 15 days earlier to the lodging of the complaint, the mobile set was found having manufacturing defect with regard to screen button which fell down from the mobile set. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the act of OP1 in supplying defective mobile handset is nothing but an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled for refund of the cost of the mobile set along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. The claim with regard to the compensation and other charges cannot be considered as the amount paid for the mobile set is being ordered to be refunded. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
Op1 is directed to refund an amount of Rs.14,625/- and pay litigation cost of Rs,1,000/- to the complainant and get back the mobile set sold from the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 27th DAY of AUGUST-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
