Delhi

New Delhi

CC/738/2012

Kiranjot Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Nokia India (P) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Oct 2018

ORDER

 

 

                     CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                  (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                            ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                     NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./738/2012                                                    Dated:

In the matter of:

Kiranjot Singh

175-A, Pocket-I, Mayur Vihar-I

Delhi-91                                                                              …… Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. Nokia India (P) Ltd.

             I & II Floors, Tower-A,

Industrial Plot No. 243, S.P. Info-City,

          Udyog Vihar, Phase-I,

          Gurgaon-122016                                                                  ……. Opposite party no.-1

 

2. Nokia Care (Service Centre)

           F-12, Bhagat Singh Market,

Near Connaught Place,

            New Delhi-110001                                                    ……. Opposite party no.-2

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

          

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a Nokia mobile phone    model X-3 in June-2010. It is alleged by the complainant that after few months of the purchase of the alleged set, an emergency arose on road but the complainant was unable to call No. 100 from her mobile phone. The complainant received  the recorded voice answer i.e. “ please check the dial no.” “there is no such services on this phone” and ultimately, she had to use the  another instrument to dial the emergency no. 100. It is alleged that after the emergency she came to know that the emergency No.s 100,101,& 102 are not acceptable by the mobile phone in question as no software regarding the emergency No.s were installed in the hand set. It is further alleged that the TRAI has made it mandatory for the mobile manufacturers to incorporate free access to emergency Nos. by user, irrespective of the fact that whether sim card is installed in the phone or not. Non-providing the services of emergency Nos. on the alleged hand set amounts to unfair trade practice, hence this complaint.

2.         Consequent upon the receipt of complaint notice was sent to the OPs. OP-1 contested the complaint and filed its written statement, in which it denied any deficiency in service. It is submitted by OP that as per the global standard of 3GPP specifications, the emergency call system can only function when the implementation is done by both the manufacturer and the operator. If the cellular operator does not support this feature then the user may not be able to dial the said emergency Nos. Moreover, the complainant has failed to placed on record any documentary evidence to support his allegations about the defect in the alleged hand set and prayed for the dismissal of the present compliant.

3.         Both the parties have filed their respective evidence.  

4.         We have heard arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused the record.

5.         It is argued on behalf of the complainant that the non-installation of software of dialing the emergency No.s in the mother board of the alleged hand set amounts to unfair trade practice, hence, prayed that the relief claimed be granted. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of OP that the complainant has failed to placed on record any documentary evidence to support his allegations about the defect in the alleged hand set and prayed for the dismissal of the present compliant.

6.         Perusal of the complaint along with annexures shows that the complainant has failed to place on record any documentary evidence to prove her contentions regarding the defects in the alleged hand set. It is alleged by the complainant in her complaint that no software has been installed in the motherboard of the mobile phone to accept emergency numbers. The complainant has failed to specify from which source she received this information. She failed to place on record any job sheet which shows that she had visited any authorized service centre of the OP and did not place on record any expert report to substantiate her case.

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that complainant failed to established a case of unfair trade practice against OP. We find no merits in this complaint, same is hereby dismissed.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum on 31/10/2018. 

 

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

 

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                          (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                                       MEMBER