Delhi

New Delhi

CC/762/2011

Praveen - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

02 Aug 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.762/2011                                                           Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Praveen,

E-49,  Laxmi Nagar,

New Delhi-92.

                 ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. Nokia India (P)  Ltd.,

SP Infocity,

Industrial Plot No.243,

Udyog Vihar, Ph.I,

Dundahera, Gurgaon, Haryana-122016.

 

2. Hotline Communication,

6/65-66, Gurudwara Road,

Karol Bagh, Delhi.

Opposite Parties.

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that on 8.6.2009, the complainant purchased a mobile set bearing IMEI No.352940022434782 for a sum of Rs.2444/- from M/s Nelco Electronics with a one year warranty from the date of purchase.

2.     Initially, the handset in question worked properly, but very soon, complainant realized that the mobile set was not working properly.  The function and various application of the mobile set  became slower  day by day, started hanging and overheating, key pad not working properly, battery back up very less etc.  As such the complainant approached OP-2 and they took the  mobile set but did not issue a job sheet.  Again on 24.10.2009,  the complainant faced the same problem in the handset and as such he again approached  OP-2  on 25.10.2009.  The executive of OP-2 assured the complainant that handset would be delivered to him within 24 hours but the OP-2 delivered the same on 29.10.2009 stating that the same could not be repaired due to water logging.  Non- repairing of the handset in question by OPs clearly shows that the mobile set was defective, out of production and service rendered was also deficient, since the mobile set was under warranty the price of the same is liable to be refunded with interest by the OPs, hence, this complaint.

3.     Complaint has been contested by the OP-1.  In the written statement, OP-1 has  pleaded that the complainant has deliberately concealed various material facts from this Forum, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.  It has been pleaded by OP-1 that the no such a shop by the name of NELCO ELECTRONICS exist at the address given on the copy of bill attached with the complainant, at the said address, one shop by name Subash Electronics is being run.    It is further stated that the claim of the defective mobile must be proved by documentary evidence showing that the defect occurred during the warranty period which the complainant has failed to do so. It is further stated that the warranty of the mobile phone with IMEI No.352940022434782 expired on 28.6.2010 whereas the present complaint is filed on 18.7.2011.  Hence, the present complaint be dismissed on this ground alone.

4.     Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit. 

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

6.     It is argued on behalf of complainant that after repairing the handset in question worked for some time and later on the same problems cropped-up and as such the complainant visited OP-2.  The OP-2 returned the same on 29.10.2009 stating that the same could not be repaired due to water logging.   Non-repairing of the handset in question by OPs clearly shows that the mobile set was defective and out of production and service rendered was also deficient,  since  the mobile set is under warranty the price of the same is liable to be refunded with interest by the OPs.

7.     On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of OP-1 that the complainant did not report any issues to the service centre as there is no jobsheet or any other document which proves that the complainant had approached the OP-2 and it took the possession of the handset to repair.  OP-1 has further pleaded that the warranty of the mobile phone with IMEI No.352940022434782 expired on 28.6.2010 whereas the present complaint is filed on 18.7.2011, hence, the same be dismissed.

8.     We are in agreement with the contention of the counsel for OP-1.  Admittedly, the mobile in question was purchased on 28.6.2009 and  as such its warranty expired on 28.6.2010.  The complainant has filed the present complaint on 18.7.2011 i.e. after the expiry of the warranty period. The complainant has enjoyed the service of the handset in question for almost one and half year and after that approached this Forum in the month of July 2011, alleging the handset to be a defective one.  The complainant had failed to place on record any single document which shows that the handset in question is defective one.

9.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that, the complainant failed to establish the case of deficiency in services against the OPs.  We find no merits in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed.

This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order be sent to both parties free of cost by post. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Forum on  02/08/2019 

 

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                MEMBER