Date: 17.08.2017

ORDER                                                        

Sh. Vikram Kr. Dabas, Member 

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint  on 11-08-2016 against the OPs under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint  are that the complainant had purchased a  cell phone make NOKIA from OP2 for a sum of Rs. 9700/- and on 10-08-2014 he had approached OP1 an authorized service center of Nokia for repairs. A sum of Rs. 1950/- was charged from him by OP1 and the handset was delivered back to him by OP1 vide job sheet no. 104433527/14070813. On 12-08-2014 the complainant had again deposited the handset with OP1 as its touch screen was not working. The handset was delivered  back to  the complainant after 5 days. Since the handset was not functioning properly  the complainant again deposited the same to OP1 on 10.09.2014 vide job sheet no. 104433527/14072831.  The complainant was asked to come after 5 days and to receive back the handset. OP insisted on payment of Rs. 1500/- for changing the display. This was against the warranty condition which provided that no repair charges would be levied during the period of 30 days of the repair.  The complainant protested against the charge of Rs 1500/- but OP1 refused to hand over the handset without its payment. The complainant had alleged deficiency of service  and has approached this forum with the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. Notice  of the complaint was served on the OPs who choose not to contest the complaint and was ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte.
3. We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
4.  In support of his complaint the complainant has filed his own affidavit dated 03.04.2017 wherein he has corroborated the contents of the complaint and has produced on record the job sheets vide which the handset was deposited with OP1. Since OPs have not contested the complaint the affidavit filed by the complainant has remained unrebutted.  It has therefore been proved on record  that the complainant had got his handset repaired from OP1 on 10.08.2014 when a sum of Rs. 1950/- was charged from him.  The handset had not worked properly and was again taken to OP1 on 12.08.2014 for repairs. After its delivery it again did not work properly and was deposited with OP1 on 10.09.2014.  The insistence on the part of OP1 to charge a sum of Rs. 1500/- for repair charges during the warranty period of 30 days was unwarranted.  The OP1 had refused to return the handset without the payment of the aforesaid amount which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP1. We therefore direct OP1 as under:-

1. Handover to the complainant the handset duly repaired or in the alternative pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- as the phone had been used by the complainant for three years.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2000/- for pain and agony suffered by him which will also includes the cost of litigation.

5.   This order shall be complied with by the OP1 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest @ 10% shall be payable on the entire above mentioned amount from the date of this order till realization. 
6. Copy of this order be sent to all the parties free of cost.   File be consigned to Record Room.              

                        Announced this ___________day of __________2017.