KAMAL SINGH Vs. NOKIA CARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 17.10.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. 344 of 2008 : Sh. Kamal Singh v. Incharge, Nokia Care and Another.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the averments made in the complaint are that the complainant s brother -in -law namely Suresh Chauhan purchased one Nokia Mobile Set, Model 6151, for Rs. 10,800 on 13.10.2006 from M/s. Harbans Singh and Co., Sector 22, Chandigarh vide Invoice (C -1). As per the complainant, Sh. Suresh Chauhan gifted the said mobile set to the complainant and the complainant was using the said mobile set from the date of its purchase. It was averred that the said mobile set started giving problems within a week after its purchase and on 26.10.2006, the complainant approached OP No. 1, authorized service centre of OP No. 2, who told the complainant to deposit an estimated sum of Rs. 1,500 as repair charges despite the set being well within warranty period. It was averred that the complainant paid Rs. 112 as advance payment and handed over the mobile set to OP No. 1 vide receipt (C -3). It was next averred that OP No. 1 only mentioned one problem of "On Off switch not working" whereas the complainant also reported other problems like unclear sound and hanging of the mobile set. As per the complainant, he was told to visit after 4 -5 days and on 4.11.2006, when he approached OP No. 1, he was informed that the mobile set had been sent to Bangalore for repair and the complainant was asked to visit again after a week. Thereafter, it was averred by the complainant, that he again visited OP No. 1 many times but OP No. 1 continued on making excuses on one pretext or the other and finally, he was told by OP No. 1 that as and when the set was received, the complainant would be informed telephonically. As per the complainant, till the filing of complainant, he had received no information from OP No. 1 regarding the repair and delivery of his handset. Alleging the above act of OPs to be a deficiency in service, this complaint had been filed seeking refund of price of the mobile set as well as compensation for mental tension and harassment besides cost of litigation.

(3.) THE version of OP No. 1 is that as per warranty terms, the complainant was not a consumer as the mobile set was sold to Sh. Suresh Chauhan and not to the complainant. It has also been stated by OP No. 1 that the mobile set in question was no more covered under the warranty and could not be repaired free of cost and further it has been stated that the hand set was water/liquid logged, a defect, which was not covered within the limited warranty. It has also been stated by OP No. 1 that the complainant had been told that the mobile set was water logged and damaged due to his own negligence and estimated cost of repairs was Rs. 4,500, which the complainant had agreed to pay and had paid Rs. 112 as advance payment. It is further the case of this OP that the complainant visited its workshop only once and not thereafter because he had to make the balance payment of Rs. 4,388 as per estimate already given to him. It has also been stated by OP No. 1 that the set is lying repaired for delivery but the complainant did not turned up to take the same. OP No. 1 has offered to deliver the handset to the complainant on payment of balance payment.