BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case No  : 1503 of 2009

Date   of   Institution :    18.11.2009

Date  of    Decision   :    25.01.2010

Madan Lal, H.No.2255, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1]     M/s Indira Enterprises, SCO No.1039, Sector 22-B, Opp. Main Bus Stand, Chandigarh.

2]     M/s. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.61-62, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:    SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL       PRESIDENT

                DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL              MEMBER

Argued by:        Complainant in person.

OPs exparte.

PER  DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL, MEMBER

                The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint briefly is that his Nokia Mobile Handset purchased from OP No.1 for Rs.14,900/- on 18.8.2009 vide bill Ann.-A, having warranty of one year, started giving multiple problems from the very beginning and therefore, the complainant visited both the OPs many times seeking its replacement with a new one but they refused.  Ultimately, a legal notice was sent to them on 19.9.2009 (Ann.-B) but to no effect.  Hence, this complaint alleging that the complainant had to suffer a lot due to the supply of a defective mobile handset by the OPs and further their refusal to replace it with new one, which act of theirs’ amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

2]             Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs but inspite of due service, none has appeared on behalf of either of the OPs. Therefore, both the OPs were proceeded against exparte.

3]             Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

4]             We have heard the complainant and have also perused the record. 

5]             Annexure C-1 is the copy of the bill dated 18.08.09 for Rs.14,900/- for Nokia N 79.1 P Black bearing IMEI. 356044030320376 vide which the complainant had purchased the above mobile set from OP-1.  Annexure C-2 is the letter dated 19.09.09, vide which a request was made to the OP-1 by the complainant for the replacement of the defective mobile set.  It is the contention of the complainant that since the date of purchase, the said mobile phone developed defects and was not functioning properly.  Thereafter the complainant approached the OPs many times with a request to replace the defective mobile set but all in vain and hence this complaint.     The complainant has not produced any job sheet to prove that there was any defect in the said mobile set, which could not be the removed by the service centre of the OP or he ever approached any service center for its repair.

6]             In our opinion, the complainant has not followed the correct procedure that in case of any defect first he should have approached the service centre to get the defect rectified. Moreover he could not prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the mobile set. However, in case there was any defect, the same could be removed by going to the service provider. Instead of going to the service provider, the complainant has directly come to this Forum.  He claims to have served a notice on the OPs but has not produced any AD to show that the notice was served on them. Therefore, we direct the complainant to make a complaint about the defects in the mobile to the OP-1. The OP-1 is directed to get the said set rectified from OP-2 and return the same to the complainant by making it functional after necessary repairs without any charges in case the defect is covered under the warrantee. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

          Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.