Delhi

New Delhi

CC/718/2011

Vipul - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

16 Jul 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/718/11                            Dated:

In the matter of:

Vipul,

365, Ganesh Nagar-II,

Shakapur, Delhi-110092

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

1. Nokia India (P) Ltd.,

        SP Infocity,

        Industrial Plot no.243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1,

        Dundahera, Gurgaon, Haryana-122016

 

2. Hotline Communication,

        6/65-66, Gurudwara Road,

        Karol Bagh, Delhi

                         ………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

President:  C.K Chaturvedi

The complaint alleges purchase of a NOKIA mobile on 23.03.09 from dealer M/s. NELCO Electronic in Laxmi NAGAR, New Delhi for a sum of Rs.3,692/- vide photocopy of receipt annexed with complaint. The receipt shows that dealer took no responsibility for any defect, meaning thereby that it was not authorized dealer of Nokia. The original of the Bill is not produced with evidence of complainant. The allegations is that it became faulty and non functional  and on 13.05.09, he took it to OP3, who issued some job card and checked the same and delivered back to complainant after taking back the job card. The copy of job card or any other document showing handling of it by OP2 is not produced with complaint nor produced with evidence. It is stated that again on 24.09.09, it became defective and on 25.09.09, he again went to OP2, who issued a job sheet and the phone again became faulty and OP2 reported water logging but on demand in writing became furious and complainant left the shop. Therefore this complaint.

        The OP 2 and OP3 did not appear and are exparte, while OP1, Nokia has filed a detailed reply, evidence and written submission questioning the genuineness of the complaint and stated that both the other two parties are not authorized dealers and in fact there is no NELCO Electronic at the place given in the receipt and some Subhas Electronics is functioning there. It stated that in the absence of documentary evidence of some defect as stated by authorized dealer, the complaint cannot be believed. It has supported this proposition with a ruling of National Commission in the case of B.H. Kerudi MDS Mitra III (200020 CPJ 299). It is also stated in written submission that 2-3 other identical complaint with change of date and other particulars has been filed.  It is stated that in none of the complaints the dealer NELCO Electronics had been made a party. It is also stated that in the records of the company such sets are shown already sold much prior to sale by the dealer mentioned by the complainant, meaning thereby that these are used second hand sets with local parts etc. The whole exercise is dubbed as mala fide to blackmail multinationals to make them pay on frivolous complaints to earn profits. A affidavit has been filed which shows by a print out of extended warranty check after using the software titled as Nokia  Online on 14.4.14 that warranty on this set ended on  25.04.09, that is much before its purchase by complainant.

        We have considered the submissions and we find weight in the submissions of the company and we have also verified the facts from other complaints brought to our notice by OP. In our considered view, the pattern of cases with similar facts with no documentary evidence of job cards and all shopkeepers behaving same way, castes a doubt in the truth of cases. In the absence of evidence of defect as mentioned in a job card of authorized dealers, the case does not inspire confidence. We do not find sufficient evidence to hold OPs for any deficiency and the complaint is dismissed.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

 

Pronounced in open Court on 16.07.2015.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER