BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.454 of 2019

       Date of Instt. 18.12.2020

       Date of Decision:23.05.2022

Ashok Kumar Age 63 S/o Sh. Prem Pushp Shahkoti, Resident of Near Lal Mandir, 4, Lal Nagar, Model Town Extension, Jalandhar City-144003 (Punjab)

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Mobile House, HO: Chadha Mobile House Pvt. Ltd., Phagwara        Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar-144001 (Punjab) Mobile No.98153-11625

2.       Gopal Telecom Nokia Honor WD Lenovo Motorola Service   Center, Nirmal Complex, First Floor, Sehdev Market, Jalandhar,        Punjab 144006, Mob. No.88727-51056

3.       Nokia Networks Pvt. Ltd., Electronic City, Phase IV, Udyog   Vihar, Sector 18, Gurugram, Haryana 122022.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Complainant in Person.

                   OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.

                   None for OP No.3.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant has purchased one Mobile Phone Nokia 7.2 DS 6 GB 64 GB HSN 8517 IMEI 352925102135656 from the OP No.1, vide Invoice No.T/19-20/37588 dated 03.01.2020 against the grand amount of Rs.17,500/- in cash and also purchased one SD card amount to Rs.800/- and both side laminated with Rs.200/-. After the purchase of said mobile by the complainant, the problem started from the first day of purchase and the complainant contacted the said company OP No.1 who referred to contact with Service Center of Nokia Mobile Phone at phone. On the complaint of the complainant, the Service Center reinstalled the software on 11 and 14.03.2020, but the problem still same and the complainant again repeatedly contacted the service centre through phone calls and then on various request the service center/OP No.2 replaced the mother board as per them. On 08.06.2020 the complainant received his mobile phone and found that some of the problem was solved and remaining was still persists. The complainant further deposited the phone with the service center on 15.06.2020 and after one month, he further received his phone with replacement of front panel as per them, but the front panel problems still persists and continue the same even today. The complainant further visited the service centre of OP No.2, they further checked the phone and deleted one record switch from the phone and said that his phone is OK and instructed the complainant not to update the phone himself. The complainant to get solve the problem, contacted the Nokia Support, get all the details of his mobile and said to further visit to service centre, but when the complainant visited the service centre OP No.2 on 06.08.2020, they refused to take mobile phone. On various requests by the complainant, the Nokia Support Centre coordinate with him and service centre and then with long conversation the service centre OP No.2 taken the mobile phone, but further return to the complainant without nothing done. The problem on the mobile phone still persists and the complainant is facing mentally harassment due to various problems in the phone. The complainant is suffering with serious deceased. The said phone is under warranty, but the company as well as service centre not performing their part, by getting the problem solved. Due to the above said facts, there is negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the amount of Rs.17,500/- + Rs.800/- of SD Card and Rs.200/- for lamination i.e. total Rs.18,500/- to the complainant. Further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OPs No.1 & 2 failed to appear and ultimately, OPs No.1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.3 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the impugned mobile set purchased by the complainant did not suffer from any manufacturing defect and the complainant has raised only vague allegations of manufacturing defect and without adducing any documentary evidence whatsoever. It is further averred that if the complainant had visited the OP No.2/authorized service centre many times, then he was having to be many job sheets, but the complainant adduced only one job sheet dated 21.08.2020, which implied that the complainant had approached the OP No.2 only once for the repair of his handset. The complainant’s case is a sheer reflection of misuse of the mobile phone, hence the answering OP cannot be held responsible for careless and negligent handling of the mobile phone by complainant. It is further averred that the limited warranty document is a part of the user manual and is inserted in every package of a Cellular Phone sold by the answering OP and is a caveat to the buyer, clearly provides that in the event of any defect/problem in the handset of a Nokia Customer, the handset will be repaired free of charges by the answering OP. The present complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and sheer abuse of the process of law. On merits, the factum with regard to purchasing of mobile handset by the complainant, is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.3 filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the complainant in person only as none has appeared on behalf of OP No.3 to argue the case and OPs No.1 & 2 were already exparte and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by complainant very minutely.

6.                It is proved on the record, vide Ex.C-1 that the mobile phone Nokia 7.2 DS 6GB 64 GB HSN 8517 was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1, after making payment of Rs.17,500/- on 03.01.2020. The complainant has alleged that after the purchase of the said phone, the mobile started giving problem and on the complaint of the complainant, the Service Centre reinstalled the software on 11.03.2020 and 14.03.2020, but the problems remained the same and then again complainant contacted the service center and the motherboard of the mobile was replaced. Despite that some problems still persisted. Service Job dated 21.08.2020 show the problems ‘during calls number no keys automatically working (mute, speaker, keypad, hold, recording etc.), calling sensor not working’. The complainant has proved on record 66 emails which are containing 26 pages attached with the application Ex.C-3, but the problem was not solved by the OPs.

7.                On the other hand, the OPs No.1 and 2 have not appeared in the Commission to contest their case and they were proceeded against exparte. OP No.3 stated in his written reply that the mobile did not suffer any manufacturing defect and the complainant has raised only vague allegations. As per OP No.3, if the mobile phone was not having any manufacturing defect, then why the problem shown in service job sheet dated 21.08.2020 was not redressed despite the visit and number of emails sent to OP No.3. OPs have not proved on record any document except affidavit to prove that the defect found in mobile was not manufacturing defect. It has not been proved on record by the OPs that the complaint of the complainant in the mobile phone was due to negligent handling of the set by the complainant. It has not been proved on record as to why the defect has occurred in the mobile time and again, despite the repair by the OPs. It has been proved that the mobile purchased by the complainant was within warranty because the mobile was purchased by the complainant on 03.01.2020 and the job sheet is dated 21.08.2020, meaning thereby that the complainant has approached the OP within warranty period. From the emails, it has also been proved that despite the emails sent number of times and reply by the OPs to the complainant, the problem could not be resolved. This proves that there is inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. Thus, the complainant has proved that the handset was having manufacturing defect. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed.   

8.                In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to pay the amount of Rs.17,500/- paid by the complainant as per Ex.C-1. The complainant has not proved nor filed any document to show that he had paid Rs.800/- for SD Card and Rs.200/- for lamination to the OP, therefore he is not entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.800/- and Rs.200/-. The OPs are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.3000/- for causing mental tension, pain, agony, physical inconvenience and harassment to the complainant and the OPs are further directed to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.   

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

23.05.2022         Member                          Member           President