1. Sanjay Chaudhary,

Flat-2D, 2^nd Floor,

Cloud - 9 Residency

Kolkata-14, P.S. Taltala, P.O. Entally. _________ Complainant

____Versus____

1. Manager / Authorised person representing

Nokia Care

Satya Telecare

229, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-6,

Near Girish Park Metro, P.S. Girish Park.

2.  Manager / Authorised person representing

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.

Flat No.1204, 12^th Floor, Kailash Building,

Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi – 110001.

3. Manager / Authorised person representing

Mobile World

1/1, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue,

Kolkata-19, P.S. Bhowanipur. ________ Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President

                          Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

Order No.   20    Dated   21/03/2016.

       The case of the complainant in short is that complainant has purchased a Nokia mobile phone, model no.E6, IMEI no.354875049191205 on 13.2.01 from o.p. no.3 at a price of Rs.16,600/- only. A photocopy of the said cash memo has been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint as annex-B.

            Complainant stated that the keypad of the said phone started problem around 2012 and the lower tap of the touch screen stopped working around the same time i.e. within very much of the warranty period. Complainant stated that he took the phone to o.ps. on 26.12.12.

            Complainant stated that the representative of o.ps. diagnosed that the problem arose due to entry of liquid in the phone and complainant was informed that he has to pay Rs.5959/- for necessary repair of the same. Complainant has paid Rs.5959/- on 2.1.13. The money receipt of the same has been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint as annex-D. O.p. no.1 has issued a job sheet bearing no.271504886/121226/71 to that effect and the photocopy of the same has been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint as annex-C.

            Complainant further stated that within one hour after delivery of the phone he found that the screen was blank though the power was on. The very next day i.e. on 3.2.13 complainant again took the phone to o.ps. and explained the problem. The representative of o.ps. after half an hour or so delivered the phone to complainant and said that the problem has been solved, but complainant found that the same problem was still persisting.

            Complainant further stated that he again took the phone to o.ps. and o.ps. stated that complainant will have to pay Rs.1300/- for repairing of the same. But complainant denied to pay the same since the problem started very well within the warranty period.

            Complainant further stated that after a great deal of persuasion with o.ps. the complainant did not succeed for getting repair of the  said phone and ultimately found no other alternative but to file the instant case with the prayers contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.

            O.p. no.1 appeared before this Forum by filing w/v and contested the case whereas in spite of receipt of notices o.p. nos.2 and 3 did not contest the case by filing w/v and as such, matter was heard ex parte against o.p. nos.2 and 3.

            O.p. no.1 prayed before this Forum that this Forum may direct the complainant to accept the replacement of the mother board of the said phone and interalia prayed for allow them seven days in this regard.

Decision with reasons:

            Upon considering the submissions of the complainant alone since the contesting o.p. no.1 has remained absent for consecutive five dates of the hearing of the case and matter has been proceeded ex parte against o.p. nos.2 and 3 since they have not contested the case by filing w/v in spite of receipt of notices and on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record this Forum holds that o.ps. had made sufficiency deficiency of service to the complainant being service providers since it appears from the record that complainant has purchased a a Nokia mobile phone, model no.E6, IMEI no.354875049191205 on 13.2.01 from o.p. no.3 at a price of Rs.16,600/- only. Besides, complainant had to pay Rs.5959/- to o.p. no.1 for repairing of the same even if when the phone was within the very much warranty period. But o.p. no.1 failed to repair the same even after receiving Rs.5959/- as stated above.

            This Forum also holds that after perusal of the materials on record that complainant was tremendously harassed for repairing of the said phone on many occasions but all in vain even after purchasing a new phone from o.p. no.1 upon payment of due consideration money. Needless to mention that nowadays phone is very essential instrument in our daily life and without which it is very difficult to fulfill various needs of the day to day life.

            Upon considering the observations as above, this Forum holds that o.ps. had made deficiency of service being service providers to the consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is allowed on contest against o.p. no.1 and allowed ex parte against o.p. nos.2 and 3 with cost. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.16,600/- (Rupees sixteen thousand six hundred) only to the complainant being the cost price of the phone in question and also Rs.5959/- (Rupees five thousand nine hundred fifty nine) only to the complainant being the repairing charge of the phone in question and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.                    

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.