CC No.1266.2015

Filed on 06.07.2015

Disposed on.20.11.2017

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU– 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 20^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1266/2015

PRESENT:

Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

        PRESIDENT

              Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                     MEMBER

                                         V/S

ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 06.07.2015 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Parties to refund the amount paid by him towards the mobile handset Nokia Lumia 925.  The Complainant incurred loss and expenses of Rs.50,000/- and the handset amount of Rs.33,499/- and other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:

In the Complaint, the Complainant alleges that on 12^th November 2013 the Complainant purchased Nokia Lumia 925 from Opposite Party No.1.  The said mobile handset has problems like power key failures and network issue in hanging problems.    Due to this problem, the Complainant handed over the defective mobile to Opposite Party No.2 under the work order No.141021/045 and was returned back after a couple of days saying that it was just software upgrade that was done and the power key was adjusted and the phone is perfecto use now.  Within a week the same problems started occurring in the phone and once again, the handset was handed over to Opposite Party No.2.  Again work Order number was generated for the second time in 141117/010 the handset would be sent to the concerned factory to repair the same, as it needed motherboard replacement and might approximately take 10 to 15 working days.  Even the second time, the Opposite Party No.2 was not of much help and only provided him updated about when he would be getting back his handset.   He finally received a call after some days from Opposite Party No.2, that the handset has been received back from the concerned factory.  In just couple of days of usage, the handset again started giving the same old problems and this time Opposite Party No.2 that it once again needs service & replacement of the power key and he assured that he will give a permanent solution and generated a work order for the 3^rd time in 3.141212/-042.  After one week he received a call from Opposite Party No.2 saying that the Nokia Lumia 925 had some serious network issues which cannot be rectified and the said handset is with him and he could collect the same and take necessary steps as there was no warranty for network issues. The handset was in the service center for nearly 12 months from August 2014 till date.  This has caused immense stress and also incurred loss his business.  He wrote a letter dt.01.04.2015 to the Opposite Party NO.1 & 3 requesting them to solve the problems related to Nokia Lumia 925 with immediate effect or else kindly arrange for the refund of the amount.  But the Complainant has not received any kind of reply.    Hence, this complaint.     

3. Eventhough notice was served on Opposite Party No.1 & 2.  But the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 failed to put their appearance.  Hence the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 placed ex-parte.  The Complainant fails to take steps against Opposite Party No.3.  The complaint is dismissed against Opposite Party No.3.  
4. The Complainant, Sri.Suresh K filed his affidavit by way of evidence and closed his side. 

5.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties ?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled ?

6.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):-  Affirmative

POINT (2):-  As per the final Order

REASONS

7. POINT NO.1:- It is the case of the Complainant that, on 12.11.2013 the Complainant had purchased Nokia Lumia 925 from Opposite Party No.1.  This fact has not been denied or disputed by the Opposite Parties.  Further in order to substantiate this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and produced the Invoice.  As looking into this document, it is dt.12.11.2013 the Complainant had purchased Nokia Lumia 925 Black Nokia Mobile IMEI356717055705502 from the Opposite Party No.1 for consideration of Rs.33,499/-.  This evidence of the Complainant has not been challenged by the Opposite Parties.  Therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that on 12.11.2013 the Complainant purchased Nokia Lumia 925 from the Opposite Party No.1 for consideration of Rs.33,499/-.

8. It is further case of the Complainant that the handset purchased by the Complainant had various problems like power key failures and network issue in hanging problems, network drops, auto phone switch off while talking and other related issues.   In August-2014 the handset was taken under the Work Order number for the first time in 141021/045 and was returned back after a couple of days saying that it was just a software upgrade that was done and the power key was adjusted & the phone is perfect to use now.   Even to this fact has not been denied or disputed by the Opposite Parties.  To substantiate this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same.    Even this evidence of the Complainant has not been challenged by the Opposite Parties.  Therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that in the Month of August 2014 the handset purchased by the Complainant had various problems like power key failures and network issue in hanging problems, network drops, auto phone switch off while talking and other related issues and Complainant took the handset with Opposite Party for repair with an Order No.141021/045 and the Opposite Parties have returned back saying that adjusted the software upgraded and was done and the power key & the phone is perfect.
9. It is further case of the Complainant, but just within a week the same problems started occurring in the phone and once again, he took the handset to Opposite Party No.2, work order number was generated for the second time in 141021/045 and was told that the handset would be sent to the concerned factory to repair the same, as it needed a motherboard replacement and might approximately take 10 to 15 working days.  Even the second time, Opposite Party No.2 was not of much help and only provided him updated about when he would be getting back his handset.  In just couple of days of usage, the handset again started giving the same old problems and this time Opposite Party NO.2 once again needs service & replacement of the power key and he assured that he will give a permanent solution to the same and generated a work order for the third time in 3.141211/042.  After one week he received a call from Opposite Party No.2 saying that the Nokia Lumia 925 had some serious network issues which cannot be rectified and the said handset is with him and he could collect the same.  Even this fact also not denied or disputed by the Opposite Parties.  Further in order to substantiate this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and produced the Service Job Sheet.  As looking into this document, after receiving the hand set the Opposite Party No.2 sending the defective handset Nokia Lumia 925 for repair and they raised Job Sheet No.542465550/141212/042 dt.12.12.2014.  This clearly shows that the Complainant had alleged faulty handset for repair.  As per this Job Sheet there is network connections problem not work drops frequently, unable to use 2. Sometime power key will not work 3. Repeated device for same issue. Data cannot be saved, sim, mmc not received.  In spite of several requests of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are fails to rectify the defect found in the handset purchased by the Complainant.  Even the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 have not resolve the issues.  The Opposite Party No.1 being the Seller and Opposite Party No.2 being the Authorized Service Center fails to get it repair the same in proper work and make the full in proper working condition, thereby it amounts to deficiency of service.  As a result of this, the Complainant got mental agony and also he has lost his business, thereby the Complainant is entitled for compensation as claimed in the complaint.  Hence, this point is held in the Affirmative. 

10. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The Complaint is allowed holding that there is deficiency of service by the Opposite Party No.1 & 2.

The Complainant is directed to deposit the faulty Nokia Mobile Handset with Opposite Party No.1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order, after receiving the faulty handset the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are directed to pay sum of Rs.33,499/- within 30 days.

Further the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony.

The Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 are also liable to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 20^th day of November 2017)

        MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Sri.Suresh K, who being the Complainant has filed his affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Invoice Copy
2. Service Job Sheet
3. Service Job Sheets Ref Nos.
4. Acknowledgement for the correspondence with the Opposite Parties.

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

                             -NIL-

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

                                      -NIL-

       MEMBER                                                                      PRESIDENT