Haryana

Panchkula

CC/181/2015

SANJAY GUPTA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AADIDEV INTERNATIONAL. - Opp.Party(s)

K.L SAINI

17 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	181 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	07.09.2015
Date of Decision	:	17.08.2016

 

Sanjay Gupta S/o Sh.Satpal Gupta, R/o H.No.2243, Sector-38, Chandigarh.

 

                                                                                       ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Aadidev International, 1001, Sector-22-B, Chandigarh.
2. Nokia Care, SCO 38, 1^st Floor, Sector-11, Panchkula through its authorized dealer.

 

                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.K.L.Sehgal, Adv., for the complainant.

              Op No.1 already ex-parte.

              Mr.Parmod Bali, Adv., for the Op No.2.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. Briefly stated that the complainant has purchased one Nokia Lumia 625 on 26.10.2013 from OP No.1 vide bill No.4934 (Annexure C-1) dated 26.10.2013 for Rs.14,900/- vide IMEI No.356689053054524. After purchase of mobile, the nephew of the complainant-Lakshey was using the mobile. After purchase, mobile was working properly upto June, 2014. In July, 2014 the mobile started giving problem. Lakshey approached the service center i.e. OP No.2 on 17.07.2014 who stated that they would send the mobile to Nokia Head Office and it would take 15 days approximately. Lakshey visited many times for taking the delivery of mobile phone. After repeated visits, Lakshey was told to collect the mobile on 19.08.2014. After two months of repair, the mobile again started giving problem I USB Post on 16.11.2014. The nephew of the complainant-Lakshey approached the OP No.2 who informed that the mobile would go to Nokia Head Office and it would take 15 days to remove the problem. The nephew of the complainant-Lakshay complained the Ops via live chat and thereafter, the mobile came within a week. But after a few days, the mobile phone automatically switched off on its own. The user Lakshey again approached the service center who retained the mobile for 20-22 days and delivered the same on 21/22.12.2014 but the problem still existed. Even, the mobile was defected and it did not catch the signal. The user Lakshey again visited the Op No.2 who kept the mobile phone for 2/3 days and told him that there was a problem in motherboard and the same could not be fixed. The user Lakshey submitted the detailed complaints to the Op No.2 but till the filing of complaint, the problem has not been resolved. The complainant had also sent a mail and in reply they informed that the complaint had been forwarded to the Higher Authorities but they failed to arrange a conversation between the supervisor and the complainant. This act and conduct on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to Op No.1 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.1. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 04.01.2016.
3. The Op No.2 has appeared and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the Op No.2 is the authorized service centre for Nokia Company but the company had purchased by Microsoft Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that the complainant approached the authorized service center i.e. OP No.2 for repair of the Nokia Lumia 625 and its warranty was expired on 21.11.2009. It is submitted that if there was any complaint in the mobile, then its manufacturer or importer i.e. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. now taken over by Microsoft Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. are liable to replace the handset and the Op No.2 has no concern with the defect of the handset of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant has not impleaded manufacture & importer as a necessary parties. It is submitted that the complainant has purchased Nokia Lumia on 26.10.2013. It is further submitted that the mobile was not properly handled with due care by nephew of the complainant. It is submitted that the mobile was working properly, it has no defect as alleged by the complainant. It is submitted that Lakshya was not the consumer under the provisions of consumer protection act as he has not purchased the handset Nokia Lumia. It is submitted that the mobile was sent to L3 centre at Company’s office for defect. It is submitted that the complainant received the mobile from OP No.2 on 19.08.2014 after his satisfaction as it was working properly. It is submitted that after two months of using the mobile, the complainant again approached the OP No.2 with some defect as the warranty of the mobile was going to be expired on 21.11.2014 and the received the mobile back after his satisfaction. It is submitted that Lakshya again approached the Op No.2 that the mobile was not working properly as Lakshya was not handling the mobile with due care. It is submitted that on 22.12.2014, Lakshey again approached OP No.2 for some defect but the OP No.2 has informed the complainant that his warranty has expired on 21.11.2014. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Replication to the written statement has been filed by the counsel for the complainant.
5. The counsel for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavits Annexure C-A & C-B alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-25 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Op No.2 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R2/A and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
7. Admittedly, the complainant purchased a Nokia Lumia Mobile handset on 26.10.2013 for a sum of Rs.14,900/- vide bill No.4934 with warranty of one year from the OP No.1 (Annexure C-1). The grievance of the complainant is that the phone started giving problem during warranty period. It is stand of complainant that mobile set was given to opposite party no.2- for repair time and again but it neither rectified the defects nor replaced the set. To prove his contentions, complainant has placed reliance upon the copies of e-mails Annexure C-2 to annexure C25 besides his affidavit Annexure CA and affidavit of Lakshya Dhawan Annexure CB. Opposite party no.1 inspite of issuance of notice through registered post failed to appear and contentions of the complainant which are supported by affidavits as well as documentary evidence are un-rebutted. Though, opposite party no.2 contested the complaint but its act and conduct show that instead of satisfying the consumer it is trying to escape from the liability by making various lame grounds which are not supported with any reliable and cogent evidence. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted to provide protection to consumers from getting cheated or harassed by suppli­ers and it is the duty of the Forum to provide a sim­pler and quicker access to redressal of consumer grievances. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly reveals that how negligent they are in doing the needful to the mobile set in question forcing the complainant to approach this Forum. This forum feel concerned that these days in fast life style of society, cellular set has become part and partial of every person and due to huge demand of mobiles the companies are attracting the customers by adopting different modes of advertisements but at the same time after selling the mobile set often consumers face a lot of problem even after paying the full cost of mobile set. Beneficiary companies availing huge amount in the shape of profit are duty bound to provide proper services till the last satisfaction of the customer.   In totality, the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of OPs as defined in Sections 2 (f) and 2 (g) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consequently, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the handset with new one and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- jointly and severally. Order of this Forum be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.   Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

17.08.2016      S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR               DHARAM PAL

                          MEMBER           MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                          

                                                     DHARAM PAL 

                                                     PRESIDENT