Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/306/2014

Prashant S/o. Shri Lal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nokia care Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Mukesh Saini

20 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                             Complaint No. 306 of 2014.

                                                                                             Date of institution: 18.7.2014.

                                                                                             Date of decision: 20.7.2015.

Prashant son of Shri Lal Singh, resident of village Gobindpura, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.   

                                                                                                                                                           …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Nokia Care Centre, Santpura Gurudwara Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Prop./Manager.
2. The Care Manager, Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., SP Infotech Industrial Plot # 243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1, Dundahera, Gurgaon.                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                         …Opposite parties.

 

Before:            SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Lal Singh Dattana, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

                OPs already ex-parte.        

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Prashant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying to replace the mobile with new one or to pay the cost of mobile in question i.e. Rs. 9900/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum till its realization alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased one Mobile Nokia Lumia 520, bearing IMEI No. 358106052010785 on 31.7.2013 from Samath Lifestyle Retailing Unit-112, FF, Great India Place Mall, Sector-38A, NOIDA, (UP) who is authorized dealer of the company for an amount of Rs. 9900/-  vide cash receipt/Bill No. 1868 dated 31.7.2013. It has been further alleged that the respondent No.1 ( hereinafter referred as OP) is authorized service care centre whereas OP No.2 is manufacturer of the aforesaid mobile/ product. It has been further alleged that at the time of purchasing the said mobile it was assured to the complainant that the mobile would provide best service to him and there will be no complaint in the model in future and have given the guarantee/warranty of one year of mobile in question and further assured the complainant that if any complaint or defect arises in the model then the same will be replaced with new one without any delay. It has been further alleged by the complainant that the said mobile in the month of last week of April 2014 started creating trouble and it was hanged, was not working properly as while making call, the said mobile automatically switched off at its own and the contact number which were saved by the complainant in the phone memory had been damaged/lost due to technical defect in the said mobile. It has been further mentioned that these defects were brought into the notice of OP No.1, who checked the mobile and got repaired on 10.5.2014 but the said defect could not be removed and again on 12.5.2014 it was hanged. It has been further alleged that the defect in mobile in question is a manufacturing defect and the same could not be removed. Lastly prayed that as the OPs have sold the defective set to the complainant and he is suffering a lot of problem due to the defect in the mobile in question which is lying ideal. Hence, there is a great deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and complainant is entitled to get the replacement of the mobile or is entitled to get the refund of the amount of Rs. 9900/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of OPs despite service through registered post dated 5.8.2014, hence both the OPs were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 7.10.2014.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Postal receipts Annexure C-1 to C-3, Copy of legal notice Annexure C-4, Copy of Bill dated 31.7.2014 Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file carefully and minutely.

6.                     From the perusal of Ex. C-5 which is copy of bill/cash memo, it is evident that the complainant purchased the mobile Nokia Lumia 520 from the Samath Lifestyle Retailing Unit-112, NOIDA, vide bill No. 1868 dated 31.7.2013 for Rs. 9900/-. The counsel for the complainant argued that at the time of purchasing the abovesaid mobile it was assured by the said seller that the mobile would provide best service to him and there will be no complaint in the mobile in future and have given the guarantee/warranty of one year of the mobile in question and further assured the complainant that if any complaint or defect arises in the model then the same will be replaced with new one without any delay. It has been further argued that the said mobile in the month of last week of April 2014 started creating trouble and it was hanged, was not working properly as while making call the said mobile automatically switched off at its own. Learned counsel for the complainant further alleged that these defects were brought into the notice of the opposite party No.1 who checked and got repaired on 10.5.2014 but the said defect could not be removed and on 12.5.2014 it was again hanged. Lastly prayed that as the defect in mobile in question is a manufacturing defect and the same could not be removed. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed.

                        The arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant have no weightage as the complainant failed to file any job sheet issued by the OPs No.1 & 2 or from any other expert that the mobile in question was having any manufacturing defect. The only plea of the complainant is that mobile remains hanged and complainant visited 2-3 times to the office of OP No.1 but no documentary evidence has been filed by the complainant to prove this contention. The complainant has also failed to file any warranty card issued by the Samath Lifestyle Retailing Unit-112, NOIDA, (U.P), even this dealer or retailer has not been impleaded as party in this complaint. The complainant has no where mentioned in his complaint that OPs have not issued any job card despite his request. Merely filing of purchase bill and legal notice it cannot be presumed that mobile set was in warranty and was having any manufacturing defect. Moreover, the complainant has filed this complaint after about  11 months 18 days i.e. just 12 days before expiry of warranty period ( if any) of one year as alleged by the complainant. Besides this, as the complainant has purchased mobile set in question from NOIDA (U.P) and he failed to produce any documentary evidence that he has availed any service from the OP No.1 i.e. Service Centre under the jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence we are of the considered view also that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint of complainant.

                        In view of the above noted circumstances we are of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case that the opposite parties are deficient in providing proper services to the complainant or this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to decide and try the present complaint. Hence, the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

Announced in open court.

Dated: 20.7.2015.               

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.