DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/109 of 28.5.2015

                                      Decided on:        5.4.2016

Raneet Kaur, aged about 25 years daughter of Balwinder Singh, resident of H.No.1095, SST, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. New Mobile Hut, SCO-42, Leela Bhawan, Near Canara Bank, Patiala.
2. Nokia Care Manager, near Coffee-Café, adjoining Jeewan Plaza, Phatak No.22, Patiala.
3. NOKIA INDIA SALES Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office Flat No.1204, 12^th Floors, Kailash Building Kusturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

                                                                   …………….Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh. A.P.S.Rajput, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member                                        

Present:

For the complainant:   Sh.Balwinder Singh,Representative

For Op No.2:                Ex-parte.            

                                         ORDER

NEELAM GUPTA,MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one mobile phone make Nokia Model 630SS having its IMEI No.353038063702008 from Op no.1 for an amount of Rs.10,200/- on 11.6.2014.It is averred that from the very first day of the said purchase, the mobile phone was not functioning properly and the complainant approached Op no.1 on 15.6.2014 and Op no.1 kept the mobile phone with it. On 16.6.2014, Op no.1 returned the mobile pbone to the complainant with the assurance that it will not give any problem (i.e. overheating, battery etc.) in future. It is further averred that there was problem in the hardware system and when the complainant told the Op about the same, Op no.1 told the complainant to approach Op no.2. On 28.2.2015, the complainant approached Op no.2. Op no.2 kept the mobile phone for almost 15 days. On 15.3.2015, the complainant collected the mobile phone from op no.2 but on using the same  he found that the defect in the mobile phone had not been rectified. The complainant again approached Op no.2 on 18.3.2015 and Op no.2 again kept the mobile phone with it for 15-20 days and then returned the mobile phone to the complainant with the assurance that the defect in the mobile phone has been rectified. But the problem in the mobile phone could not be rectified. The complainant underwent a lot of harassment and ultimately he approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( for short the Act).
2. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against Ops No.2&3 only who failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against exparte.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith document Ex.C1 and closed the evidence.
4. The complainant failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the complainant in person and gone through the evidence on record.
5. The complainant has given the statement at bar that she was not issued any job sheet by the Op and she further told that she herself was also not aware of the fact that the OP was bound to issue the job sheet. It seems to be quite a genuine case. She has stated  in her sworn affidavit that she purchased the mobile phone in question on 11.6.2014 and there occurred some problem in the hardware system of the mobile phone and she approached Op no.1 who directed her to approach Op no.2.She approached Op no.2 for the first time on 28.2.2015 and Op no.2 kept the mobile phone with it for 15 days and on 15.3.2015 Op no.2 returned the mobile phone to the complainant. After using the mobile phone for 2-3 days, the complainant observed that the mobile phone was not functioning properly and as such she again approached Op no.2 on 18.3.2015 and Op no.2 assured her that the faulty parts of the mobile phone will be exchanged. Op no.2 returned the mobile phone to the complainant after 15-20 days with the assurance that the faulty parts of the mobile phone have been exchanged and hence onwards it will function properly. On using the mobile phone, the complainant came to know that the defect in the mobile phone has not been rectified. As such the complainant underwent a lot of harassment and mental tension and also suffered monetary as she is not in a condition to purchase a new mobile phone. Moreover failure on the part of the Ops to contest the claim of the complainant goes to show the indifferent attitude of the Ops to redress the grievance of the complainant.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint as the defect occurred in the mobile phone during the warranty period and the Ops were bound to rectify the same which it failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Ops no.2&3 are thereby directed to rectify the defect in the mobile phone up to the satisfaction of the complainant and if that is not possible to replace the mobile phone with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund an amount of Rs.10,200/- i.e. the price of the mobile phone alongwith Rs.3000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the Ops within 45 days of the receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pronounced

Dated:5.4.2016

               Sonia Bansal           Neelam Gupta                        A.P.S.Rajput

        Member                Member                                  President