State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Reliance Communications ... vs Sharma Tsrk,3Rd Street, Perambur, ... on 19 July, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru.A.K. Annamalai, M.A., B.L., M.Phil., JUDICIAL MEMBER
Tmt.Vasugi Ramanan, M.A., B.L., MEMBER F.A.8/2010 [Against order in C.C.223/2007 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North)] DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JULY 2011 The Reliance Communications Ltd., | Appellant/1st Opposite Party Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, | Nungambakkam, | Chennai 600 006. | Vs.
1. Sharma TSRK, | 19, Bunder Garden, | 1st Respondent/ Complainant 3rd Street, Perambur, Chennai 600 011. |
2. M/s. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., | 2nd Respondent/2nd OP.
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, | 2nd Floor, Commerical Plaza, | Redlesson Hotel NHB, Mahipalpur, | New Delhi. |
3. Brightpoint India Pvt. Ltd., | 3rd Respondent/3rd OP.
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, | 21, White Hall 1st Floor, Greams Road, | Thousand Light, Chennai 600 006. | This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 06.07.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order, of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:
Counsel for the Appellant / 1st OP : M/s.Shivkumar and Suresh, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respt/ Complainant :
Mr.K.Ravikumar, Advocate.
For the 2nd Respt/2nd OP :
Absent.
For the 3rd Respt/3rd OP :
Called Absent.
A.K. ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The first opposite party is the appellant.
2. The first respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties, claiming for direction to pay a sum of Rs.5,100/- towards Cellphone cost or for supply of new handset and Rs.1 lakh each for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
3. The complainant has purchased a handset of Nokia model on 25.03.2006 from the first opposite party for Rs.5,100/- and from the date of purchase, handset has been giving problem and not functioning properly. Therefore, he approached the third opposite party and handed over the set for repair on 26.8.2006 under an acknowledgement. Till date the handset was not returned in spite of several demands made in person and over phone, he has not returned the same or provided with a new handset, thereby the complainant sustained loss in his business due to non-availability of mobile phone and thereby the complainant has issued a legal notice on 16.3.2007 and the first opposite party sent a false reply dated 23.03.2007. Hence, the complainant come forward with this complaint.
4. The third opposite party remained absent before the District Forum and first and second opposite parties denied the allegations of the complainant in their Written Versions. The first opposite party stated that he is only an agent to sell the mobile phone supplied by the second opposite party-manufacturer and for the repairs, third opposite party only to be approached as service provider for second opposite party and as against the first opposite party, the complainant is not a consumer and no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice by the opposite parties. The complainant has not chosen the handset for analytical tests under Section 13 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act.
5. On the basis of the enquiry, the District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,100/- or to give a new Handset, to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as compensation for mental agony due to deficiency of service and Rs.1,000/- as costs.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the first opposite party alone come forward with this appeal and in the grounds of the appeal among other things, it is contended that the first opposite party is only as an agent of the second opposite party, who is the principal in relationship and no liability can be foisted for the first opposite party since no service at all was undertaken by the first opposite party to repair the instrument. The third opposite party approached the complainant to collect back repaired the handset for several times, the complainant had not collected the same for the reasons best known to him. The first opposite party is not liable to pay anything as claimed by the complainant and without considering the contentions of the opposite parties, the Trial Forum erroneously allowed the complaint. Hence, as against the first opposite party, the order to be set aside.
7. In this appeal even though all the opposite parties suffered an order from the District Forum against them, the first opposite party alone has come forward with this appeal and contended regarding the claim of the complainant for repairing handset or replacing the same, they are is no way connected as they are not the service providers for the handset purchased from them. The complainant filed Ex.A1 copy of the bill and Ex.A2 copy of the receipt given for receiving handset by the third opposite party for repair and also the appellant filed a letter of the opposite party and on perusal of those documents, in Ex.A1, the complainant had purchased from the first opposite party one Nokia Mobile Phone for Rs.5,100/- on 25.3.2006 and as per Ex.A2, third opposite party gave a customer equipment and inspection receipt, in which, the complainants handset was received for certain repairs on 26.8.2006 and it is stated that the handset taken under trial basis/informed to the customer, set may go dead condition. On perusal of Ex.A4-Ex.B1, the first opposite party sent a letter dated 23.03.2007, in which, the complainant was required to contact the manufacturer of the handset that is second opposite party or his service centre and for any handset related problems and also as a matter of facilitation, they took up the matter to the second opposite party and as per the details from the second opposite party that the complainant failed to take delivery of the handset and thereby the complainant was requested to approach Nokia Service Centre in this regard. As per the above letters, it is clear that the first opposite party in no way connected with the complaint regarding the repair of the handset purchased from the opposite party except for the selling of the same and only the third opposite party and second opposite party as service provider and manufacturer, supplier of the defective handset to be responsible for the allegations of the complainant. It is stated that the second opposite party is always willing to perform the obligation and terms of warranty and request the grievance of the complainant and still willing to service and repair of the handset and there was no defect in the manufacturing of the handset and the complainant failed to take analysis test and thereby the complainant failed to file relevant documents for his contact with the third opposite party and thereby, they are not liable. While considering these contentions, except the production of purchase bill and the receipt for handing over the mobile phone to the third opposite party even though the alleged repair was within the period of one year of warranty and when the first opposite party and second opposite party contended that as per the Ex.A4 and Ex.B1, which are the one and the same in spite of requests made by the third opposite party, he has not prepared to collect the handset to verify that the alleged repairs were effectively attended or not and unless it is checked for the worthiness without collecting for the same, the complainant rushed with a complaint before the Consumer Forum. As far as the first opposite party is concerned, as rightly pointed by the appellants counsel that there is no nexus between the complainant and the first opposite party in the matter of service/repair or replacement of new handset etc., for the complaints alleged in the complaint in no way, they are connected except for the selling the handset, in order to avail their net service. In those circumstances, the order of the District Forum erroneously roped in the first opposite party also along with second and third opposite parties by making it jointly and severally liable for the defects and deficiency of service as alleged against the second and third opposite parties. In those circumstances, in view of the materials on record and the facts and circumstances of the case as elicited, the first opposite party is deserve to be exonerated from the liabilities against the complainant and thereby the appeal to be allowed to that extent alone, accordingly.
8. In the result, appeal is allowed as against the first opposite party and the order passed by the District Forum, Chennai [North] in C.C.223/2007, is hereby set aside and the complaint against the first opposite party alone is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs in this appeal.
VASUGI RAMANAN A.K.ANNAMALAI M.THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT