BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.160 of 2014

Date of Instt. 13.05.2014

Date of Decision :10.04.2015

Jatin Khurana son of Raj Kumar Khurana, R/o H.No.3573, Dr.Bhole Wali Gali, Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd, Flat No.1204, 12th Floor, Kailash Building, Kasturba Gandhi Mark, New Delhi-110001 through its Incharge.

2. M/s Mobile House, Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through Proprietor.

3. Nokia Care, Jabal Tower, adjoining Hotel Radisson, Near BMC Chowk, Jalandhar through its Manager/Authorized Representative.

4. Mr.Prince Sareen, Gopal Service Centre, Shop No.36, Silver Plaza Complex, Sodal Road, Opp.Sanyog Palace, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Manish Sidana Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 3.

Opposite parties No.2 & 4 exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant purchased a mobile phone make Nokia Lumia 800 bearing IMEI No.359289041961935 from opposite party No.2 through invoice No.33633 dated 10.12.2012 for an amount of Rs.18,000/-. The opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of the mobile phone and the opposite party No.3 is the authorized service centre managed and controlled by the opposite party No.1, as such, the opposite party No.1 is fully responsible for the acts and conducts of the opposite party No.3. There arose defect in the above said mobile while it was within the warranty period, as such complainant approached opposite party No.2 for the repair of the said mobile and opposite party No.2 informed the complainant that there is a defect in the mobile of the complainant and he should approach the opposite party No.3 as the opposite party No.3 is the authorized service centre of the company. Complainant approached the opposite party No.3 on 9.12.2013 with regard to removal the defect in the mobile set of complainant. After going through the mobile phone, Mr.Prince Sareen, representative of the opposite party No.3 stated that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set and he assured that the defect will be removed and he took the mobile set from complainant in his custody and issued the customer information slip to complainant and asked complainant to come after few days to collect the mobile set after removal of the defect. Complainant approached opposite party No.3 after ten days for getting back the mobile set after the removal of the defect, but the representative of opposite party No.3 stated that it will take some more time to remove the defect. The representative of opposite party No.3 assured the complainant to again come after five days and the mobile set will be returned to complainant after removing the defect. The complainant again visited the office of opposite party No.3 for getting back the mobile set but opposite party No.3 kept on putting of the matter on the one pretext or the other and did not hand over the mobile set to complainant intentionally with an intention to charge more money from complainant as there was an apprehension in the mind of complainant that there is some hanky panky being done by the opposite parties with the mobile of the complainant. In the last week of December 2012, the complainant against approached the opposite parties and requested the opposite parties to provide the mobile set after making the proper repair but opposite party No.3 instead of providing mobile set started quarreling with complainant and flatly refused to provide the mobile set to the complainant and threatened that in case the complainant again visited the office of the opposite party No.3 then he will have to face the dire consequences and the complainant came back empty handed from the office of opposite party No.3. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile handset of the complainant or to provide him with new one. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice only opposite parties No.1 and 3 appeared and filed joint written reply, inter-alia, pleading that as per the information and record available with the opposite parties, the complainant purchased his handset on 10.12.2012 from mobile house. It is necessary to mention that opposite party No.1 supplied the box pack handset to the mobile house i.e the dealer of Nokia mobiles and it is also necessary to mention that whenever the company supply the handset to its dealer/retailers at that time box of the handset is sealed one and the handset is in OK condition. The mobile house sold the handset to the complainant and from that date till today the handset is working properly and there was no fault in the handset. But the complainant in connivance with opposite party No.4 Mr.Prince Sareen and to harass and pressurize the answering opposite parties, filed the present complaint. It is necessary to mention that this thing clearly shows that the complainant in connivance with Mr.Prince Sareen has procured a information slip and it is also necessary to mention that there is no rule in the company that any of the service centre has received the handset against information slip because this slip is for the information that the customer visited the service centre but by this it does not mean that the any Nokia care received the handset but it is necessary to mention that the service centre only receive the handset by issuing the service job sheet and in the present complaint the complainant has failed to produce the service job sheet on record. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Opposite parties No.2 and 4 did not appear inspite of notice and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to C5 and closed evidence

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and closed evidence.

6 We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the present parties.

7. The complainant purchased the handset in question from Chadha Mobile House vide retail invoice dated 10.12.2012 Ex.C2 for Rs.18000/-. According to the complainant as defect arose in the mobile handset during warranty period, he approached the opposite party No.3 and handed over the mobile handset to the service centre and service centre issued customer information slip Ex.C1. In the slip Ex.C1, name of the complainant and IMEI number of the phone are mentioned. Further in the slip set dead is also mentioned. Counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 3 contended that the service centre receive the handset only against service job sheet and not against any customer information slip. He further contended that the complainant has procured the above said slip Ex.C1 in connivance with opposite party No.4 i.e Mr.Prince Sareen. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsels for both the parties. Customer information slip was issued by Nokia Care i.e opposite party No.3 and when the mobile handset was handed over to the opposite party no.3, it was service centre of opposite party No.1. The mobile was received by Mr.Prince Sareen i.e opposite party No.4 who was in above said service centre at that time. In support of his contention, the complainant has tendered his affidavit. The mobile handset was received by opposite party No.4 who was in the service centre at the relevant time but he has not come present to deny that mobile handset was not received by him. The other opposite parties have not examined him or tendered his affidavit to the effect that mobile handset was not received by him. If Mr.Prince Sareen who was in the service centre of opposite party No.1 company at the relevant time has committed some wrong and has mis-appropriated the mobile handset then company is at liberty to take legal action against him but so far as complainant is concerned, the opposite parties No.1 & 3 are liable for the mobile handset given by the complainant to the service centre which has not been returned to him till date.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted against opposite parties No.1 & 3 and they are directed either to return the mobile handset of the complainant in fully repaired condition or in the alternative to give him new mobile handset of the same make and model or to refund its price to him within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

10.04.2015 Member Member President