Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 574
Instituted on : 08.11.2019
Decided on : 29.05.2024
Vaibhav s/o Sanjay Sharma R/o Mohalla Haripura, Ward no. 9. Jhajjar at present Ward no. 7, Badli Road Jhajjar District Jhajjar.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Rising Stars Mobile India Private Limited, Plot No. M-2B, Sipcot Industrial Park Phase II, Hi Tech Sez, DTA Area, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram- 602106, Tamil Nadu, India. (Name and Address of Manufacturer.)
- M/S NOKIA SOLUTION AND NETWORK (P) Ltd 6th floor DLF Cyber City Phase 2, Sector-14 Gurugram-122002.
- Kode Products & Services Private Limited, Bilaspur Pataudi Road, Near Bilaspur Chowk at NH8, Opp. TATA Service centre, Bilaspur, Haryana, India-122413. (Seller Name and Address).
- Nokia Service Centre, R/o TELE SERVICE (595_433527), SCF-42 Ground Floor, HUDA Complex, Opp. Heritage Hotel, Rohtak- 124001, Haryana
...........……Respondents/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Neeraj Sikka Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.S.P.Saini, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 to 4 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he had purchased a Nokia smart mobile handset Nokia 6.1 Plus on 10.11.2018 from the respondent no. 3 through Flipkart. The respondent No.1 is the manufacturer/Importer of the mobile handset and the respondent No.4 is the authorised service centre of Nokia Smart phones. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.15999for the alleged mobile. But the mobile in question bear following defects:-
“(i) The phone gets not charging and hanged up and has to be restarted automatically.
(ii) The phone is not recognised the 'SIM CARD’
(iii) The phone lost the network many times.
(iv) The phone restarts at its own while being used resulting in disconnection of calls and other services.”
When the complainant first time went to the service centre (Respondent no.4), his mobile was not charging. The respondent no. 3 had also prepared the 'Service Job sheet on 07.10.2019 and take the phone for repair and after two hours they returned the phone but the phone of complainant was not ‘OK’ and above said problem again came in the mobile set. On 01.11.2019 he again went to show his handset at the service centre (Respondent no.4) and told him about the above said problem of handset but he refused to repair the handset. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that respondents may kindly be directed to refund the entire sale consideration and also to award a sum of Rs.5000/-(Five Thousand) towards damages and Rs.6000/-(six thousand) as litigation charges to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.4 did not appear despite service through Process-Server of this Commission and as such opposite party No.4 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.01.2020 of this Commission. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has given up the opposite party No.2 & 3 being unnecessary party vide his separate statement dated 11.04.2022. Opposite party no.1 in preliminary objections of its reply has submitted that when a handset is suffering from a defect covered under the limited warranty which occurs during the validity of warranty period and such a defect is beyond repair, only then in such a rare event, the defective part is replaced and or handset is replaced by another handset of the same model to avoid any kind of inconvenience or loss to the customer. Replacement as per the limited warranty terms is limited only to those cases where repair is not possible and or where there is a genuine problem of repeated repairs of the same problem. Complainant has stated in his complaint he approached the service centre for the first time on 7.10.2019 as mobile was not charging and the service centre rectified the defect within two hours and the handset was handed over to him which shows that the authorised service centre (ASC) of the OP provided the prompt service to the complainant. Thus, it is clear from the above-mentioned facts that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant with no genuine or valid cause but to take undue advantage of his own wrongs.. On merits, it is submitted that complainant had used the handset for about 11 months from the date of purchase of the handset without any fault or defect. Complainant has not filed any documents along with the complaint to show that the handset was having defects as mentioned in the complaint. The complainant has not filed the documents/Job Sheet dated 07.10.2019 as alleged. The complainant has failed to place on record any evidence to show that the handset was having the problem as alleged in the para under reply after being repaired by the authorized service centre on 07.10.2019. The complainant has made baseless allegations that he had approached the service centre on 1.11.2019 and the service centre refused to take the handset for repair. The complainant has failed to place on record an iota of evidence to substantiate such false claim. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence on dated 06.07.2023. Ld. Counsel for opposite party no.1 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and closed his evidence on 03.05.2024..
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written submissions filed by opposite party no.1 as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per bill Ex.C1, complainant had purchased the mobile set on 10.11.2018 for Rs.15999/-. As per job sheet Ex.C2 dated 07.10.2019 there is problem of ‘charging not working’ in the alleged handset. The alleged defect appeared in the mobile set within warranty period. As per the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the defect again appeared in the mobile set and he approached the opposite party no.4 on 01.11.2019 but the opposite party no.4 refused to repair the same. On the other hand, opposite party no.4 did not appear before this Commission and was proceeded against exparte. As such it is presumed that opposite party no.4 has nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations levelled by the complainant against the opposite party No.4 regarding not repairing the mobile set within warranty period stands proved. As the mobile set was within warranty period and as such it was the duty of opposite party No.4 to repair the mobile set free of cost within warranty period. But opposite party failed to do so. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party no.1 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set to the complainant. As the complainant has used the mobile set uninterruptedly for 11 months hence he is entitled for refund of price after deduction of 35% depreciation i.e to pay Rs.10400/-(Rs.15999/- less 5600/-).
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.10400/-(Rupees ten thousand and four hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 08.11.2019 till its realisation and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
29.05.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
