CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 293/2012
Sh. Manish Kumar Choudhary
R/o 87, Ground Floor,
Khirki Village,
New Delhi-110017 ……Complainant
Versus
1. Nokia Care
Service & Communication Solutions
A-180 (1st Floor),
Sukhdev Nagar Market,
Kotla Mubarak Pur,
New Delhi
2. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.
S. P. Infocity, Udyog Vihar,
Phase-I, Gurgaon ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 06.06. 12 Date of Order : 03.10. 15
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that on 21.09.2010 he purchased a mobile handset, model No.E-63 from authorized dealer of OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.8,700/-. From January 2011, the handset started giving problem as some of the keys were not working properly. The problem became unbearable after May 2011 and in June 2011 the keypad of mobile handset completely stopped functioning and due to this defect the Complainant had to suffer a lot of problem, as he was not able to make proper communications in his personal as well as professional affairs. On 18.06.2012 (sic) when the keypad completely stopped working, he visited OP No.1, the authorized service centre of OP No.2 at Kotla Mubarakpur. He apprised the defect to OP No.1 but he was shocked to see the indifferent attitude of the concerned dealing staff. They stated that the set had liquid damages and therefore the same could not be covered under warranty. He requested OP No.1 to provide defect report on a service job sheet but he refused to do so and further demanded Rs.110/- for giving report in proper job sheet. He was helpless and had to pay the same. As per job sheet dated 18.06.2012(sic):
“keypad not work………, scratches on panel……….. Fully liquid damage, front glasses broken”
which is wrong and misleading.
Complainant has further stated that as his handset was defective, he was forced to purchase another handset for his requirement.
Hence, pleading deficiency in service, complainant has prayed as under:-
- Direct the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.8,700/-, the cost of the handset.
- Direct the OPs to give a brand new mobile set worth of Rs.8,700/- which was paid by the Complainant as per choice of the Complainant.
- Direct the OPs to refund Rs.110/- which was illegally taken from the Complainant for issuance of job sheet.
- Direct the OPs to pay cost of Rs.50,000/- towards damages, harassment and mental agony suffered by the Complainant due to acts of OPs.
- Direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs.
Vide order dated 01.09.2012 and 16.07.2013 passed by our predecessors OP No.1 & 2 were proceeded exparte.
Complainant has filed his exparte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments as well.
Complainant has placed on record a cash memo/bill for an amount of Rs.8952/- dated 21.09.2010 (copy annexure-A for the purpose of identification) showing purchase of Nokia E-63. He has also placed on record copy of service job sheet dated 18.06.11. (Copy annexure-CW1/1).
In view of the above it transpires that the Complainant had purchased a mobile handset from authorized dealer of OP No.2 for an amount of Rs.8952/- on 21.09.2010. The handset started giving trouble on or about 18.06.11. He submitted the same to OP No.1 for repair. The OP No.1 issued job sheet dated 18.06.11 (not 18.06.12 as stated in the complaint). The Complainant’s mobile handset was within the warranty period but OP No.1 charged Rs.110/- for issuing the job sheet.
The averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the Complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged.
However, still we are of the view that Complainant has failed to make out a case for deficiency in service on the parts of OPs.
In the service job sheet, comments have been written as under:
“KEYPAD NOT WORK ISSUE ALL DATA WILL BE DELETED SCRATCHES ON PANNEL H/S RCVD W/O SIM MMC BATTERY AND BACK COVER H/S POOR FIT, FULLY LIQUID DAMAG, FRONT GLASS BROKEN H/S CAN BE DEAD WHILE REPAIRING INSPECTION CHARGES-110
Final Action Taken : Handset returned un-repaired
Reason for Action : Customer not ready for repairs & wants
Replacement”
The handset in question was returned to the Complainant because the Complainant was not ready for repair and wanted replacement. Complainant has not led any evidence to even show that the said report is wrong and misleading. Therefore, in the absence of ill will or malafide appearing against the OP on the record we do not see any reason to disbelieve the said report. The Complainant has not filed copy of the Warranty Card. Therefore, we are deprived of the opportunity for seeing what kind of defects in the handset in question were covered under the warranty. Apart from this, the purchase value of the handset in question is Rs.8,952/- and as per the averments made in the complaint he purchased the handset for Rs.8,700/-.
In view of above discussion, we hold that the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 03.10.15.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
