DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Aman Sharma son of Sh.Swarn Kumar, resident of House No.937, Ucha Khera, Ropar (Pb). and Permanent r/o H.No.940, Ucha Khera, Ropar (Pb).

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1.       Nokia Care, SCO No.2433-34, 2^nd floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its authorized representative/authorized signatory.

2.       Customer Service Head, Tower-A, SP Info City, Plot No.243, 1^st – 2^nd floor, Udyog Vihar, Phase 1, Gurgaon – 122016 (Haryana) through its authorized signatory.

……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:   P.L.AHUJA                                                  PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA         MEMBER

ARGUED BY: Complainant in person. 

                      Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs.

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Sh.Aman Sharma, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Nokia Care & Anr. - Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that he purchased one mobile phone make Lumia 710 Nokia bearing IMEI No.359300049879142 on 18.5.2012 for a sum of Rs.14,200/- vide bill, copy of which is Annexure C-1 from M/s Anmol Watches, SCO No.1043, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. It has been alleged that after three months of its purchase, the said mobile phone started giving hanging trouble and did not open the facebook.  The complainant immediately approached OP No.1 and the person on duty told him to come after 10 days. After 10 days he again visited the place of OP No.1 and the person on duty again told him to visit after 15 days and also did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. The complainant again visited counter No.3 after 15 days and one lady told him that his mobile phone was not working properly and further told that she was not having the proper updation of software with her.  The complainant suffered heavy losses in his business by visiting the place of OPs time and again.  Since OP No.1 did not respond to the complaint of the complainant, he contacted the helpline number of Nokia i.e. 01130303838 and lodged a complaint vide No.1-13358563610 and the person on line suggested the complainant to visit Nokia Care Centre again.  The complainant again visited Nokia Care Centre and no response was given to him. Then the complainant lodged a complaint with Consumer Forum helpline No.1800114000 and he was suggested to move an application to Customer Service Head, Tower-A, SP Info City, Plot No.243, 1^st – 2^nd floor, Udyog Vihar, Phase 1, Gurgaon, Haryana.  Accordingly the complainant sent an application dated 28.10.2012 – Annexure C-2/A vide courier, postal receipt of which is Annexure C-2 .  Thereafter the complainant was told on telephone to visit the place of OP No.1 again. However, no response was given in the office of OP No.1. Then the complainant served a notice dated 9.11.2012, copy of which is Annexure C-3 by courier vide receipt, copy of which is Annexure C-4 upon OP No.2 but no reply was received by him. Lastly on 5.12.2012 the complainant visited the office of OP No.1 and found that the entire staff had been changed. Madam on duty told the complainant to leave the mobile phone with her and he was issued a service job sheet, copy of which is Annexure  C-5.  It has been contended that till the filing of the complaint neither the updation of software had been done nor the money was refunded to the complainant. The complainant has alleged that he has suffered  a loss of Rs.30,000/- in the business, apart from transportation charges. The complainant has sought a direction to the OPs to give a new handset to him with fresh bill or in the alternative to refund the price of the mobile phone, apart from paying damages to the tune of Rs.30,000/-.  

2.                In their written reply, OPs have pleaded that the name of the complainant is not mentioned in the retail invoice. The allegations of the complainant about his visit to OP No.1 have been denied. It has been averred that the complainant was asked to deposit the said mobile phone with OP No.1 as per instructions received from the customer care. A letter was sent to the complainant on 8.11.2012 through speed post, copy of which is Annexure R-1 and the copy of postal receipt is Annexure R-2.  It has been averred that the complainant visited the OP No.1 on 5.12.2012 and a job sheet was duly issued to him and he never approached the OPs prior to 5.12.2012.  It has been further stated that the mobile phone of the complainant was repaired as per terms and conditions and he was informed telephonically many times to collect his mobile set and after that a letter dated 22.12.2012 was sent through speed post but the father of the complainant refused to accept that letter. It has been averred that as per limited warranty conditions, the mobile is to be repaired and if the same is not repairable then it is to be replaced but in no circumstances the refund is to be given to the customer. The copies of letter, postal receipt, envelope returned back and warranty terms and conditions are Annexure R-3 to R-6.

3.                In his replication, the complainant has pleaded that the OPs were not ready to listen to him and they were adopting delaying tactics in order to consume the warranty period and avoid their liability. It has been averred that the complainant had purchased the handset after making the payment in cash and there was no need of mentioning of his name on the retail invoice. It has been averred that the complainant was harassed by OP No.1 and the staff members of OP No.1 namely Mr.Mohit and two madams, who were adopting the delaying tactics.

4.                The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and the learned Counsel for the OPs.

6.                So far as the question of the complaint of defective mobile set of the complainant is concerned, it is the admitted case of the OPs that vide job sheet dated 5.12.2012 – Annexure C-5, the problems of locking up of the phone and not opening of the facebook were reported and the mobile set was deposited with Nokia Care – OP No.1. According to the OPs, the mobile set in question was repaired and the same was ready for collection and the complainant was intimated a number of times to collect his phone and ultimately a letter dated 22.12.2012 – Annexure R-3 was sent to him but he did not come to take the delivery. It is also significant to note that the matter was also put up before the Lok Adalat and OPs were ready to give back the repaired mobile set along with extended warranty of six months but the complainant was not ready to accept the same and wanted a compensation of Rs.30,000/-, which was not acceptable to the OPs. The fact that the mobile set in question was deposited with OP No.1 on 5.12.2012 and it was repaired by the OPs goes to show that it was defective. As per conditions of warranty – Annexure R-6 Nokia warranted to remedy defects in materials, design and workmanship free of charge by repairing or, should Nokia in its absolute discretion deem it necessary, replacing the product in accordance with the limited warranty. The warranty conditions do not provide the refund of the money. Since in this case, the OPs have repaired the mobile set of the complainant and are ready to give an extended warranty of six months, we feel that the complainant is not entitled to a new handset or refund of the price of the mobile phone.

7.                The only question that survives for determination is whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation for deficiency in service on the part of OPs, if so, to what amount.

8.                It is important to note that the allegations of the complainant about the repeated visits to the office of OP No.1 in para No.2 of the complaint have not been specifically denied in the written reply of OPs. It has also not been denied in reply to para No.3 of the complaint that the complainant lodged a complaint vide No.1-13358563610 on helpline number of Nokia.  The copy of letter - Annexure C-2/A and the courier receipt dated 28.10.2012 – Annexure C-2 show that the complainant alleged that he had been visiting Nokia Care Centre time and again since the last 2 ½ months but his problem was not being resolved. It is also pertinent that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 9.11.2012 – Annexure C-3 to the OPs, courier receipt of which is Annexure C-4. The OPs sent a letter dated 8.11.2012 – Annexure R-1 to the complainant for depositing the handset with Nokia Care. Ultimately the OP No.1 sent a letter – Annexure R-3 to the complainant for collecting his mobile set only on 22.12.2012. A perusal of the evidence on record shows that the complainant had to visit the office of OP No.1 time and again but he was not given any satisfactory reply nor his mobile phone was repaired. The averments in the written reply of the OPs that the complainant came on 5.12.2012 for the first time and a job sheet was issued to him are patently wrong because OP No.1 itself sent a letter in reply to the letter of the complainant on 8.11.2012, wherein, they apologized to the complainant that he was facing some problems in his handset and he was requested to visit Nokia Care for resolving the issues. We are of the considered opinion that there is definite evidence of deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainant was harassed physically and mentally on account of the dilatory tactics of the staff members of OP No.1. However, we feel that the damages of Rs.30,000/- demanded by the complainant are on the higher side. The ends of justice would be met if an amount of Rs.6,000/- only is allowed as compensation for deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

9.                For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly allowed. OPs are directed :-

i)                 To handover the repaired mobile set of the complainant in perfect working order with an extended warranty of six months from the date of handing over of the set to him.

ii)                To make payment of an amount of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant towards compensation.

iii)                To make payment of an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards litigation costs.

10.              This order shall be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs shall replace the mobile phone with a new one of the same make and model with fresh warranty along with compensation of Rs.3,000/-, besides costs of litigation. The liability of the OPs shall be joint and several.

11.              The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.