DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.
Complaint case No. 76/2009 Date of disposal: 30/12/2009
BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT : Mr. P. K. Sarkar.
MEMBER : Mr. S. Pal.
MEMBER : ********** For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Self.
For the Defendant/O.P.S. : Mr. P. Sengupta & Mr. K. Mishra.
(1) Shri Prasenjit Pal C/o- Mrityunjoy Pal, Vill & P.O.-Benai, P.S.- Daspur, Dist Paschim Medinipur………….Complainant.
Vs.
1) M/S-Madanmohan Telecom, Main Road, Jhargram, Dist-Paschim Medinipur.
2) M/S-Mobile India, Kharida, Malancha Road, Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur.
3) The Care Manager, Nikia India Pvt. Ltd., 4F, Tower A & B, Cybergreen DLF Cyber city, Sector-25A, Gurgaon-122002………………….……………..Ops.
The Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows :-
The complainant purchased a Nokia 2626 Mobile phone from the Op. no.1 on 26/03/2008 for Rs.2,500/- and after using the mobile phone for some time he observed that battery back up time of the mobile phone was much less than the other mobile phone of the same brand. The complainant reported the problem to Op. no.1 and as per advice of the Op. no.1 the complainant used another battery of the same brand but the problem remained the same. Subsequently on 05/01/2009 the complainant handed over the mobile phone to the Op. no.1 for removal of the defect and the Op. no.1 assured the complainant to return the mobile after a week after repairing the same by the authorized Nokia Centre. Thereafter the Op. no.1 deferred the date of delivery of the mobile phone to the complainant and finally on 21/01/2009 returned the mobile phone to the complainant. Again after using the mobile phone for few days the complainant found that the battery problem remained the same and as such he again handed over the mobile phone to the Op.no.1 on 26/01/2009 to repair the same through the Nokia Care Centre and the Op. no1 returned the mobile phone to the complainant on 28/02/09 again harassing him for long time for the same. The problem of the back up time of the battery remained the same. Then the complainant lodged a written complaint in the matter to the Assistant Director, Consumer
Contd………….P/2
- ( 2 ) -
Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Paschim Medinipur on 23/02/09 and on the intervention of one of the officers of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Paschim Medinipur, the Op no.1 advised that the complainant might approach the Nokia Care Mobile India, Kharida, Malancha Road for removal of the defect of the mobile phone and accordingly on 06/03/09 the complainant himself deposited the mobile phone with Nokia Care Mobile India, the Op. no.2, for removal of the defect. Subsequently the complainant took delivery of the mobile phone from the Op. no.2 on 16/03/09 but the problem of battery back up time was found to have not been solved or removed. Subsequently the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Paschim Medinipur, arranged a meeting in the chamber of S.D.O., Jhargram on 28/07/09 to resolve the problem and after hearing the submissions of both sides the S.D.O., Jhargram advised the Op. no.1 to replace the mobile phone of the complainant or refund the price thereof to the complainant but the Op. no.2 did not pay any heed to such advise and as such the complainant filed the instant complaint for deficiency on the part of the Ops. with prayer for issuance of directions upon them to refund of the price of the mobile phone in question with interest thereon and to pay compensation for harassment and mental agony and to pay litigation cost to the complainant.
The Op. no. 2 & 3 contested the case by filing their written objection separately. The Op. no.3 contended, interalia, that as per limited warranty clause they were liable to repair the hand set in question free of charge within one year from the date of its purchase and only in exceptional circumstances, as mentioned in clause 7 of the manual where the hand set is not repairable due to non-availability of spare parts, to replace the hand set with the same model and that there was warranty for six months for the battery of the hand set and that the complainant complained of the defective battery of the hand set long after expiry of six months and as such the Op. no.3 is not liable for the alleged defect in the battery of the hand set purchased by him and that the Op. no.3 thorough their Customer Care network helped the complainant to mitigate his hardship by repairing the hand set without charging any amount and that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the instant case against them.
The Op. no.1 contended, interalia, that in the 1st week of January,2009 the complainant came to their shop and complained about the back up period of the battery of the Nokia Mobile .2626 purchased by him on 26/03/2008 from them. As requested by the complainant the battery of the mobile set was replaced by a new one and when again the complainant made similar complaint they arranged for repairing the hand set and returned the same to the complainant in O. K. condition and that when the complainant again complained of similar problem in the battery of the mobile set, the Op. no.1 helped him to rectify the problem by referring the same to
Contd………….P/3
- ( 3 ) -
the Nokia Care Service Centre Mobile India, Kharida-Malancha Road and that after sometime the complainant again came to their shop and created pressure upon them to replace the mobile set with a new one and as they refused to replace the mobile set with a new one the complainant filed the instant case on false and frivolous grounds for wrongful gain. According to Op. no.1 there was no deficiency in service on their part as alleged by the complainant. As such, the complaint filed against them is liable to be dismissed.
The points for decisions are :
1) Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the section 2 (i) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 ?
2) Whether the Ops. are deficient in service within the meaning of section 2 (1)(g) read with section 2(1)(0) of the C. P. Act, 1986 ?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as sought for ?
Decisions with reasons :
Point No. 1.
Admittedly the complainant purchased one Nokia Mobile Phone Set (Model no.2626 black) from Op.no.1 on 26/03/2008 for Rs.2,500/-. The complainant filed this case against the Op.no.1, the Op. no. 3, the manufacturer of the set and their service centre i.e. the Op. no.2 , alleging that the back up time of the battery of the said mobile phone was much less than other Nokia mobile phone of same brand and the Ops. failed to rectify the defect in the said mobile phone within the warranty period from the date of its purchase, with prayer for issuance of direction upon the Ops. to replace the mobile set by a new one or to refund the price thereof. As such, the complainant must be held to be consumer of the Ops. within the meaning of section 2 (i) (d) (i) read with section 2(1)(g) & 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point Nos.2 & 3.
As per complaint, the only grievance of the complainant was that the back up time of the battery of the Nokia Mobile set (model no.2626) purchased by him was much less than the other mobile set of same model. The complainant has failed to assert what is the normal back up time of the battery of Nokia mobile set of Model no.2626 though he has admitted in his complaint that he was required to charge the battery at the interval of 18/20 hours, suggesting that the back up period of the battery of the said mobile set was about 18/20 hours. In absence of any evidence to prove that the back up period of the battery of Nokia 2626 hand set was much more than 18/20 hours, as contended by the complainant, the complaint regarding the same appears to be vague and baseless. It may be noted the battery back up period of the mobile set depends upon its use and as such the same is variable one.
Contd………….P/4
- ( 4 ) -
It transpired from the manual of Nokia 2626 mobile set filed by the complainant that the manufacturer i.e. the Op. no.3, provided warranty for proper functioning of the battery of the set for a period of six months from the date of its purchase. So, the manufacturer, the Op. no.3 was liable to repair or replace the battery of the mobile set through their customer care center within six months from the date of its purchase. Admittedly the complainant purchased the Nokia mobile set on 26/03/2008 and deposited the set to the Op. no.1 on 05/01/2009 to repair the alleged mal-functioning of the battery of the set through the Nokia customer care centre. So, it transpired that the complainant did not make any complaint regarding the mal-functioning of the battery of the mobile set in question within the warranty period of the battery of the same i.e within six months from the date of its purchase. So the liability of the Ops in the matter of the alleged defects in the battery of the mobile set in question ceased after expiry of the warranty period of six months from the date of its purchase
The service job sheet filed by the complainant disclosed that the customer care center of the manufacturer of the mobile set in question, the Op no.2, removed the alleged mal-functioning of the battery of the mobile set to the satisfaction of the complainant and delivered the same, sometimes in March 09. The claim of the complainant that he was compelled to sign the job sheet recording his satisfaction, hardly believable in absence any cogent reason for the same particularly when the Op no.2 rendered the service free of cost long after the expiry of the warranty period.
In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Hence,
it is ordered
that the complaint be dismissed on contest. The parties do bear their respective costs.
Let the copies of the judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Dic. & Corrected by me
I agree
President Member President
District Forum
Paschim Medinipur.