Order dated 16.03.2009<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> After first round of calling of the cases, later on the complainant came and was present before the forum. The representative of opposite party No. 1 was also present. He filed a memo as under:<br /> <br /> “Respected Sir,<br /> As per the case No. CC428/2009 of complaint given by Mr. Kanish Kumar has given the handset model 6210 bearing IMEI No. 354199020222537 which has been swapped from higher level repair.<br /> <br /> We apologies for the delay. I have got the swap handset now bearing IMEI No. 354199020507127 which I would like to handover to the customer.<br /> <br /> Kindly instruct the customer accordingly,<br /> <br /> Thanking you,<br /> Yours truly,<br /> <br /> For Mobile Care”<br /> <br /> The complainant who was present before the forum received the new handset from the representative of opposite party No. 1. The complainant also claimed in his complaint replacement of handset with new piece. In view of giving of new piece by opposite party No. 1 the prayer of the complainant has been met with. The only grievance of the complainant is he has spent money for filing complaint and he has wasted his working days to enquire the status of repair of handset and it was troublesome job for him to enquire again and again the status of repair. It gave him mental tension. Therefore, the complainant submitted that a reasonable amount towards cost and expenses be awarded. He also wanted warranty card. The representative of opposite party No. 1 submitted that already complainant had been given warranty card and that warranty card will hold good and opposite party No. 1 has no authority to give fresh warranty card. Complainant also submitted that he has got warranty card which had been given to him at the time of purchase of handset in the month of September 2008. Opposite party No. 1 representative submitted that the Nokia Company has to give costs of litigation. Opposite party No. 1 is only a service centre working for the company. Opposite party No. 1 has given address of the Nokia Company. Complainant has not made Nokia (India) Pvt. Ltd. as party to the present proceedings. Therefore, in the absence of making company as party to the proceedings again it will be difficult for this forum to direct the company to pay the cost and compensation for mental agony, harassment etc. Since the complainant has got relief of replacement of handset his request for cost and compensation is not liable to be considered in this complaint as the complainant has not made Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. as party to the present case. However, it is open to the complainant to file a complaint against Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. seeking cost and compensation. The disposal of this complaint will not come in the way of complainant proceeding against Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. If the complainant is so advised he can file complaint against the company or he can make representation directly to the Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. asking for costs and compensation. With this observation since the matter is settled and the complainant having received new handset the present complaint deserves to be closed. <br /> <br /> 2. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 3. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />