Anmol Communications V/S Vishal Nihra S/o Devender Pal - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Karnal

119/2011

Vishal Nihra S/o Devender Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anmol Communications - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Goel

07 Sep 2015

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

Complaint No.119 of 2011

Date of instt. 24.2.2011

Date of decision: 2.11.2015

Vishal Nihra son of Shri Devender Pal resident of House no.1402, Sector-6 , Karnal.

……..Complainant.

Vs.

1.M/s Anmol Communications, near Gurmukh Hardware, Subzi Mandi Road, Karnal through its owner.

2.Nokia India Pvt.Ltd. 2^nd Floor Commercial Plaza, Radisson Hotel NH-8, Mahipalpur, New Delhi 37 through its Managing Director.

3.Shri Nath Ji Communication, Nokia Service Centre Shop No.8, Nehru Palace, Karnal through its Owner.

……… Opposite Parties.

Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

Protection Act.

Before Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

Sh.Anil Sharma ………Member.

Smt.Shashi Sharma…..Member.

Present: Sh.Vishal Goel Advocate for the complainant.

OP No.1 and 2 ex parte.

Sh.Amish Goel Advocate for the OP No.3.

ORDER:

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he had purchased one Nokia Mobile Phone Model No. 5800-D, black colour, bearing IMEI No. 351531044623931 from the Opposite Party (in short OP) No.1 on 28.4.2010 for Rs.13500/-.The said mobile phone carried one year warranty. Since the date of purchase, the mobile was having problem of hanging, in the use of net and disconnection, besides there was no clarity in the picture. He approached the OP no.1, who asked him to contact OP no.3, the authorized service centre of OP No.2. Accordingly, he approached the OP no.3 on 22.12.2010, who repaired the mobile phone and assured that there was no problem in the set. After 10/15 days, same problem again occurred . He again approached OP no.3 on 15.1.2010, who after checking told that mobile was having manufacturing defect and required to be replaced from the company. On the asking of OP no.3, he left the mobile phone at the service centre for getting the same replaced, but OP no.3 never got the same replaced. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Ops which caused mental agony and harassment to him apart from financial loss.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops. OP no.3 put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action; that the complaint is not legally maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is an abuse of the process of law.

On merits, it has been submitted that on 22.12.2010 mobile phone of the complainant was repaired. On 15.1.2010, the complainant was told that mobile required repairs from the office of OP no.2, the manufacturer, but no assurance was given that the mobile would be replaced. However, after consent of the complainant his mobile phone was retained by the OP no.3 and a valid job sheet was issued to him. When , the OP no.3 received back the mobile phone of the complainant from OP no.2, it was told by OP no.2 that screen of the mobile phone was tampered and as per terms and policy of the OP no.2, the same did not fall within the ambit of warranty. In this way, there was no deficiency in services on the part of OP No.3.

3. None put into appearance on behalf of OP No.1 despite service, therefore, ex parte proceedings were initiated against OP no.1, vide order dated 24.9.2012.

Sh.Deepak Sandhu Advocate appeared for OP no.2, but none appeared on its behalf on 1.7.2013, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against OP no.2 also.

4. In evidence of complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 have been tendered.

5. In evidence of OP No.3, documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R5 have been produced.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OP no.3 and have gone through the case file very carefully.

7. The complainant had purchased Nokia mobile phone Model 5800-D, black colour from OP no.1 on 28.4.2010 for Rs.13,500/-. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that defect developed in the said mobile phone and the complainant initially took the same to OPno.3, the service centre of OP no.2 and OP no.3 repaired the same and removed the defect. However, again the same defects occurred and the complainant approached the OP no.3 on 15.1.2011, but OP no.3 told that the same could not be repaired by the service centre and was repairable by OP no.2 , manufacturer. The mobile set was kept by OPno.3 with the consent of complainant for getting the same repaired or replaced from Opno.2. As per pleadings of OP no.3, when the set was received back from OP no.2, it was reported that screen was tampered and as per terms of the policy, the same could not be replaced under warranty.

8. From the pleadings of the OP no.3, it is emphatically clear that mobile set was sent by him to OP no.2 for replacement/repair, but the same was not replaced/repaired and when it was received back from Opno.2, it was reported that screen of the same was tampered. The OP no.3 is the authorized service centre of OP no.2. Neither it has been pleaded by Op no.3 nor there is even any iota of evidence on the file, which may show that when the mobile was brought by the complainant to OP no. 3, the screen of the same was already tampered. Thus, the OP no.3 had sent the mobile untampered to OP No.2, but when it was received back , the screen of the same was found tampered. Therefore, complainant cannot be blamed for tampering with the screen of the mobile set. The facts and circumstances indicate that screen might have been tampered either at the service centre of OP no.3 or during transit to OP no.2 or at the place of OP no.2. Therefore, Ops could not say that defect in the mobile could not be removed or the set could not be replaced during warranty period on account of tampering with the screen. As the screen of the mobile set was found tampered with, the same cannot be repaired rather requires replacement . Not replacing the mobile set of the complainant certainly amounted to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

9. As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP no.2 to replace the mobile phone of the complainant. In case the said model is not being manufactured these days, then the amount of Rs.13,500/- for which the mobile set was purchased by the complainant, be refunded to him. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses. The OP no.2 shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:02.11.2015

(K.C.Sharma)

President,

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma) (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

Member. Member.