In a significant decision reinforcing consumer rights, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, has ruled in favor of Sunil Kumar, a resident of Thrissur, Kerala, who had filed a complaint against Nokia Mobile Company Ltd. and its authorized dealer Kannan’s Digital Trends for selling a defective mobile phone and failing to provide effective redressal.
The Commission, presided over by Sri. C.T. Sabu (President) and Smt. Sreeja S. and Sri. Ram Mohan R. (Members), held the mobile manufacturer and dealer jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. It ordered them to refund the cost of the defective mobile phone along with compensation for mental agony and litigation costs, all with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the complaint.
Background of the Case
The complainant, Sunil Kumar, purchased a Nokia 2TA 1011 DS mobile phone for ₹6,700 from Kannan’s Digital Trends, an authorized dealer, on June 29, 2018. The phone, which came with a one-year warranty, soon developed software issues, making it unusable within a few days of purchase.
Repeated attempts at repair at the Thrissur Mobile Care service center on July 30, August 11, and September 22, 2018, failed to resolve the issue. Frustrated by the lack of assistance from both the dealer and the manufacturer, Sunil Kumar approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, under Section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a refund and compensation for mental agony.
Legal Issues Considered
The Commission framed four key legal questions:
Did the mobile phone suffer from a manufacturing defect?
Was there a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties?
Was the complainant entitled to a refund and compensation?
Should the opposite parties bear the litigation costs?
Court’s Findings
1. Manufacturing Defect Established
The Commission, after reviewing evidence such as invoices and job sheets, observed that the mobile phone repeatedly failed due to a software malfunction (“416 Start-Up-SW-Failure-Reflash”) within the warranty period. The court noted:
“The recurring fault exhibited by the mobile phone, that too within a few days of its purchase, proves that it suffered from a manufacturing defect.”
Nokia’s defense that the defect was due to misuse by the complainant was dismissed since the company failed to provide any counter-evidence to support its claim.
2. Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice
The Commission found both the manufacturer and the dealer liable for their negligence in addressing the consumer’s complaint. It stated:
“There is no necessity for a new mobile phone to be taken to the service center multiple times within a few days of purchase, unless the instrument is inherently defective.”
The court further criticized the role of the dealer, remarking:
“The dealer is not a mere cash collection center, whose duties and responsibilities culminate with the sale of a product to the end-user. The dealer cannot treat the consumer as a mere ‘cash cow’.”
Since Kannan’s Digital Trends failed to coordinate with Nokia to resolve the issue, the court deemed its conduct unfair and irresponsible, making it equally liable for the complainant’s hardships.
3. Refund and Compensation Granted
Recognizing the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant, the court ordered:
₹6,700/- refund for the defective phone
₹5,000/- as compensation for mental agony
₹5,000/- for litigation expenses
9% annual interest on the total amount from the date of complaint filing
The Commission directed Nokia and Kannan’s Digital Trends to comply within 30 days, failing which further action could be initiated.
