K Amjad Basha vs N Naveen Kumar

AGGRIEVED by the order, dated 16.11.2010, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 300 of 2008, the Complainant is before us in this Revision Petition.

IN short, the grievance of the Complainant, in his Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Anantapur (for short "the District Forum"), was that he had handed over his Nokia mobile, model N -70, to the Respondent for rectification of display problem in the set, purchased by him in January, 2007 in Saudi Arabia. While handing over the set, he had paid a sum of 1000/ - towards the repair charges, as demanded by the Respondent. However, when he went to collect the set, he was asked to pay a further sum of 3500/ -, as it was found that the Integrated Circuits (ICs) had to be replaced, besides replacement of display module. The Complainant seems to have protested to the demand of extra money. The Respondent having failed to deliver the mobile set without the Complainant paying the extra amount, the Complainant got a legal notice issued to him. Responding to the said legal notice, the Respondent, while admitting that he had received an advance of 1000/ - for replacing the display module, stated that when the Complainant visited the service centre on 22.09.2007, he was informed that ICs had to be replaced, for which an estimate of 4500/ - had been given to him but for unknown reasons, he refused to pay the said amount. It was stated that the Respondent was still prepared to return the said mobile set as it is and also to refund the amount of 1000/ - paid by the Complainant.

NOT being satisfied with the offer made by the Respondent, the Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Forum. Vide order dated 31.01.2008, the District Forum dismissed the Complaint, inter alia , holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. While dismissing the Complaint, the District Forum also directed the Complainant to pay to the Respondent a sum of 2000/ - towards damages for causing mental agony to him along with 500/ - as litigation expenses. Not being satisfied with the said order, the Complainant preferred Appeal to the State Commission. On reconsideration of the entire matter, though the State Commission found that there was no merit in the stand of the Complainant that he was deprived of the benefit of warranty because of the breaking of the seal by the Respondent, yet the State Commission partly allowed the Appeal, with a direction to the Respondent to repair the mobile set and to deliver the same to the Complainant, on his paying a sum of 3500/ -. Hence, the present Revision Petition.

DESPITE service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondent. Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant.

THE main thrust of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Complainant is that the Complainant having paid a sum of 1000/ - for the repair of the mobile set, as demanded, the Respondent was obliged to repair the mobile set to his satisfaction, without asking for any extra money for the repairs, more so, when the set had already been examined in his presence by the Respondent.

WE are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned Counsel. Admittedly, the Complainant had purchased the mobile set some time in the year 2007 and it was under manufacturer''s warranty, yet he chose to get it repaired from an unauthorized repair shop. Having himself permitted the Respondent to examine the set after breaking open the seal, it has rightly been observed by the State Commission that he cannot be permitted to complain for being deprived of the benefit of the warranty period. Even otherwise, no evidence has been adduced by the Complainant before the lower Fora to substantiate his plea that except for replacement of the display module, the set did not require any other repair.

FOR the afore -going reasons, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting our interference in exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs.