Judgment:
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member)
1. The complainant being dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Forum for repairing of the mobile phone has filed the appeal contending that the District Forum had not taken into consideration of the pleadings and evidence as also the District Forum failed to consider the gravity of mental tension suffered by the appellant due to improper functioning of the mobile phone. It is contended that on number of occasions the appellant approached the respondents for repair of the mobile phone.
2. The appellant purchased mobile phone from the 2nd respondent on 26.4.2011 for Rs.4,200/-. The respondent offered warranty for one year for the mobile phone. The mobile phone stated to have not functioned from the date of its purchase and often it used to switch off. The respondent No.2 rectified the problem by changing the battery and thereafter other problems continued to exist. The appellant paid an amount of Rs.150/- on 18.10.2011 for extension of warranty. On 5.2.2011 the 3rd respondent informed the appellant that there was problem with mother board and it was handed over to the respondent for rectifying the problem. 15 days thereafter, the 3rd respondent returned the mobile phone to the appellant which after working for 15 days posed the same problem.
3. The appellant again handed over the mobile phone to the 3rd respondent on 30-1-2012 which was sent to the 1st respondent company and returned to the appellant after a period of 30 days informing the appellant of new mother board was installed. The problem said to have been repeated and the phone was handed over to the 3rd respondent on 28.3.2012. The 3rd respondent returned the phone to the appellant assuring that the mobile phone would not pose any problem and that if any problem arises they were replace the phone with new mobile phone. The appellant got issued notice on 28.4.2012 demanding for replacement of the mobile phone.
4. The respondents resisted the claim on the premise that warranty for the battery is six months and it was replaced suggesting the appellant that he should charge the battery. The 3rd respondent replaced the hand set with a new mobile phone in the month of December, 2011 when the appellant complained of the same problem. The appellant, in support of his claim filed his affidavit and documents Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9. Shaik Abdul Razzak the Authorized person of the 2nd opposite party filed its affidavit. Sri Srinivasa Varma The Authorized person of the 3rd opposite party filed its affidavit
5. The District Forum has allowed the complaint on the premise that replaced mobile phone posed problems even after the mobile phone was repaired by the 3rd respondent.
6. The point for consideration is Whether the appellant is entitled to refund of the cost of mobile phone and compensation?
7. The appellant purchased Nokia mobile phone bearing IMEI No.357012041998166 on 26.4.2011 from the 2nd respondent for consideration of Rs.4,200/- and the respondents offering warranty for the mobile phone are not disputed. The learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the mobile phone was not completely replaced and on two occasions the panel of the mobile phone was replaced by the 3rd respondent. On 5.12.2011 the mobile phone was found problem in the board and it was forwarded on 5.12.2011 to the respondent No.1 and after getting the problem repaired, the mobile phone was returned to the appellant. The appellant was informed that the mother board of the mobile phone was replace with new board.
8. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 had contended that the appellant charged the battery more than 10 hours continuously for a period of one month and due to over charging the battery, its span of life was reduced. The 3rd respondent demonstrated the appellant as how to charge the mobile set for a period of 2 to 3 hours in a day.
9. The appellant handed over the mobile phone on 18.10.2011 to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent extended the warranty for the hand set and he verified the battery again in the month of December, 2011 and found its condition good. The appellant insisted on replacement of mobile set and informed the respondent No.3 that the mobile phone was not functioning well. It is contended that the appellant with an intention to get a new mobile phone has been making allegations against the respondent.
10. Replacement notes dated 30.1.2012 and 293.2012 would show that the mobile phone was replaced with a new phone on two occasions. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that panel of the phone and not the phone was replaced is not sustainable. In the replacement note the IMEI No. of previous phone and new mobile phone and that of the new mobile phone are mentioned as 359075041043760 and 357012041998166 and likewise in the second replacement the IMEI No of the mobile phone that was replaced and the phone replaced with are mentioned as 359350048604371 and 359075041043760. As such it can be said that the mobile phone after having been replaced two times cannot be expected to any manufacturing defect. It is not denied that the appellant charged the mobile phone for about 10 hours in a day which resulted in damage to the battery of the mobile phone. The appellant, no doubt has been put to inconvenience during the period the mobile phone was handed over to the 3rd respondent till it was returned or replaced with a new mobile phone.
11. In regard to the replacement of the mobile phone, the appellants charging the mobile phone continuously for 10 hours in a day by itself cannot be made a ground to come to the conclusion that the mobile phone supplied by the respondent had not suffered any defect. For supplying the mobile phone that posed problem to the appellant, the respondents had given response by replacing the mobile phone on two occasions and expressed their readiness to repair the mobile phone free of cost. The District Forum has directed the 3rd respondent to attend to the problems of the mobile phone free of cost. However the District Forum has not awarded any amount towards compensation of the costs. The appellant has to be awarded costs of the proceedings as the attitude of the respondents made him to approach the District Forum. In the view may District Forum ought to have award costs to the appellant and we quantify the costs of Rs.1,000/- payable by the respondents 1 and 2. The relief granted by the district Forum is maintained.
12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed confirming the order of the District Forum and awarding an amount of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand rupees only) throughout the proceedings towards the costs.