Haryana

Panchkula

129/2015

PAWAN MARYA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROSOFT MOBILES INDIA. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

06 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                         

Consumer Complaint No	:	129 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	20.07.2015
Date of Decision	:	06.10.2015

Pawan Marya, # 422, Marya Street, Tohana, Haryana-125120.     

                                                                                                                                                                                                          ….Complain­ant

Versus

1.       Microsoft Mobiles India, Microsoft Mobile Device Corporate Office (Formerly Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd.) SP Info City, 1^st and 2^nd Floor, Tower A, Plot No.243, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Dundahera, Gurgaon, Haryana-122016.

2.       Teleshpere, Microsoft Mobile Service Center (Nokia Care Center), SCO 38, First Floor, Sector-11, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.

3.       Mobile Connect, Microsoft Mobile Service Center (Nokia Care Center), SCO 2473-74, 2^nd Floor, Sector 22C, Chandigarh-160022.

                                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Ajay Marya, authorized representative for the complainant. 

Ops already ex-parte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complainant-Pawan Marya has filed the present complaint against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a Nokia 206 handset from Nokia Priority Store (JMD Mobile Store), Railway Road, Tohana, Haryana on 09.07.2014 for an amount of Rs.3,660/- vide bill No.0351, IMEI No.359197059976309 and 35919705997631. From the first week of purchase, the mobile phone started giving problem and the complainant deposited his mobile phone at Nokia authorized service center, they repaired the mobile by reinstalling or updating software but after few days, same defects occurred again and his phone started freezing and restarting. The complainant brought the defect to the notice of Ops. The Op No.3 voided the warranty of complainant’s phone in January, 2015 in unethical ways. The service center executive did not want to replace the mobile phone of the complainant by claiming that the mobile phone was damaged due to liquid contact. After activation of warranty in May, 2015, the brother of the complainant deposited the phone to Op No.2 (Annexure C-2) for replacement as it has rebooted and freezed. After 40 days of deposition, Nokia India and its service partner refused to replace and declared it in perfect condition after reinstallation of software but the mobile phone was in the possession of the OP No.2 since 07.05.2015. The complainant called Nokia all India and also sent mail to Nokia Service Team regarding his query but no satisfactory solution was found. The complainant issued legal notice dated 18.06.2015 (Annexure C-3) to the Ops but Ops No.1 & 2 did not bother to comply with the notice and OP No.3 refused to receive the same. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Ops through registered post and the same has not been received back served or unserved. None has appeared on behalf of the Ops. It is deemed to be served and the Ops were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.08.2015.
3. The authorized representative for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard authorized representative for the complainant and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
5. It is evident from the retail invoice (Annexure C-1) dated 09.07.2014 coupled with affidavit that the complainant purchased a Nokia 206 handset vide IMEI No.359197059976309 and 35919705997631 for an amount of Rs.3,660/-. After one week of purchase, the mobile phone started giving problem and the complainant deposited his mobile phone at Nokia authorized service center. They reinstalled or update software but after few days, the mobile phone starting freezing and restarting. The complainant approached the Ops and the Op No.3 voided the warranty of complainant’s phone in January, 2015 with unethical ways. The complainant activated the warranty in May, 2015 and the brother of the complainant deposited the mobile phone to Op No.2 (Annexure C-2) for replacement as it has rebooted and freezed. After 40 days of deposition, Nokia India and its service partner refused to replace the phone and declared that it was in perfect condition after re-installation of software and the mobile phone is in the possession of the OP No.2 since 07.05.2015. The complainant called Nokia all India and also sent a mail to Nokia Service Team regarding his query but no satisfactory solution has been found. The complainant has filed his sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
6. Moreover, the Ops did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Ops shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same is accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is proved.
7. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops are jointly and severely directed as under:-

1. To refund the cost of mobile handset i.e. Rs.3,660/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of receipt till realization.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

06.10.2015     S.P.ATTRI                      ANITA KAPOOR        DHARAM PAL

                        MEMBER            MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT