Delhi

East Delhi

CC/425/2013

ARCHANA SAMAI - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAA COMM. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Sep 2016

ORDER

                DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                               

                                                                                                   Consumer complaint no. -       425/2013

                                                                                                   Date of Institution     -          20/05/2013

                                                                                                   Date reserved on         -      30/09/2016

                                                                                                   Date of Order               -      30/09/2016                               

In matter of

Ms Archna Samal, adult   

d/o-Sh Ravindra Samal

r/o- A 121, First Floor,  

Swasthya Vihar, Vikas Marg

Delhi 110093…………………………………..…..………..……………….Complainant

                                                                    Vs

1- M/s MAA Communications,

Office –13, Shankar Nagar,

Vikas Marg, Delhi 110092  

 

M/s Nokia India Pvt Ltd,

HO- SP Infocity Industrial Area,

1&2^nd Floor, 243, Udhog Vihar-Phases 1,

Gurgaon-122016, Haryana…….…………………….…….…….……Respondents

 

Complainant ………………………………In person

Opponent 1…………………………………NEMO

Opponent 2…………………………………Sondhi Narula & Associates-Advocates

 

Quorum         Sh Sukhdev Singh     -   President

                        Dr P N Tiwari             -   Member                                                                                                   

                        Mrs Harpreet Kaur   -  Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                  

Complainant had purchased one Nokia mobile phone vide model no 7230 and EMEI no. 41993215 and same developed screen display problem, so complainant visited OP1 on 09/07/2012, OP1 asked complainant to pay a sum of Rs 1550/- for some parts which were to be replaced, so complainant paid the cost and was told that the mobile would be returned after 10-15 days. Again, complainant went to OP1 on 30/12/2012 for some problem which occurred again, OP1 asked to pay a sum of Rs 1550/ but she refused to pay, so the said mobile was not returned to complainant. Complainant stated that she along with her father was also insulted by OP1, when she went to collect the mobile. OP1 finally refused to return her mobile on 22/04/2013. She also stated that complainant had lodged a police complaint on 31/10/2012. Thereafter, she filed this complaint claiming replacement of her mobile for a new phone with Rs 10,000/- as compensation for damages caused for mental harassment and Rs 10,000/- as legal expenses.

Notices were served. OP 1 did not put its appearance nor submitted its written statement and evidence even up to arguments stage. OP2 submitted its written statement, denied all the allegations alleged by the complainant. It was admitted that the said Nokia mobile vide model no. 7230 was purchased by the complainant from elsewhere vide its invoice SN 4902 for a sum of Rs 5800/-on dated 19/09/2010 and the said mobile had its standard warranty of one year which was up to 19/09/2011 and no defects were alleged in one year by the complainant. OP2 stated that she visited on service centre on 09/07/2012, after the expiry of standard warranty for some defect in her mobile which were rectified and the mobile was returned after she paid the cost of some internal parts.

OP2 submitted that they provide warranty for their products for one year without physical damages and per their purchase manual, warranty starts from the date of purchase of product/mobile. Hence, the complaint filed against the OP be dismissed as the alleged allegations pertaining to services by OP1 were without any factual basis and evidence. OP2 also stat3ed that the present complainant had no locus standi as police complaint was filed by her father, so the present complaint be dismissed.

Complainant and OP filed their evidences on affidavit which were on record. None of the parties were present neither on earlier dates nor on the date fixed for arguments. On the basis of evidences on record, we perused the file and passed the following order on merit, as -

There were no merits in the complaint, so the complaint deserves to be dismissed, and the same is dismissed without cost.

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.

 

 Mrs -Harpreet Kaur  -Member                                         (Dr) P N Tiwari - Member                                              

                                       

                                  Shri Sukhdev Singh - President