ORAL

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.2835 of 2006

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.                                       ...Appellant.

Versus

Gaurav Gupta & Ors.                                ….Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Smt. Bal Kumari, Member.

None appeared.

Date    12.8.2015

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member- The appeal has been taken up hearing. None responds and there is no application for adjournment either. The appeal is pending for the last 9 years for admission, therefore, in view of the provisions contained under Rule 8(6) of the U.P. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 30(2) of the Act,68 of 1986, we deem it fit to pass appropriate order on the basis of evidence on record.  

From perusal of the records, it transpires that the respondent/complainant Sri Gaurav Gupta purchased one Nokia brand Cellular Phone Nokia 1100 on 8.2.2004 for Rs.4,900.00 M/s Sardarji Phones, Vardhman Complex, Abulane, Meerut vide bill no.4577 dated 8.2.2004. The IMEI number of the Handset was 352546003231368. The Handset failed to provide trouble-fee and smooth services and, therefore, it was given to the dealer M/s Sardarji Phones on 30.12.20014 for removal of the same vide Job-sheet no.7904. It has been alleged that the dealer or the manufacturer failed to remove the defects, although the Handset was within the period of warranty as well as guaranty. Consequently, compliant case no.77 of 2005 was filed after giving due legal notice. The Forum below after considering all facts, circumstances and evidence on record directed the appellant to refund Rs.4,900.00 to the

(2)

respondent towards price of the defective Handset. It also awarded 12% pendente lite and future interest, Rs.2,000.00 as compensation and a further sum of Rs.2,000.00 as cost of litigation. The appellant did not comply with the orders. The impugned judgment and order is passed on the documentary evidence on record. The Bill no.4577 dated 8.2.2004 indicates that the Nokia Handset was sold to the respondent/complainant for Rs.4,900.00. This receipt further indicates that M/s Sardarji Phones is the authorized dealer of Nokia India Ltd. The job-sheet no.7904 shows that it had problems relating to making calls and towards sensivity. There is nothing on record to indicate that the defects pointed out were removed. The impugned judgment and order is based on the documentary evidence on record. There is no irregularity or illegality in the same and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in it. There is none to pursue the appeal. Consequently, the appeal, being meritless, is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.  

ORDER

          The appeal, being meritless, is dismissed at the admission stage.  No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

         (A.K. Bose)                                (Bal Kumari)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA-II

Court No.4