Haryana

Karnal

CC/223/2021

Jaswant Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nokia Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 223 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.16.04.2021

                                                        Date of Decision: 20.07.2022

 

Jaswant Kumar son of Shri Jai Narayan Sahu, resident of house no.93, Second floor, Sector-8, Part-1, Karnal, Haryana, 132001, India.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Nokia Corporation, Head Office, 7^th floor, Building 9A, DLF Cybercity, DLF Phase III, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana, India through its Director/Manager/Authorized Representative.

2.     New Mass Communication, SCO 152, 1^st floor, Mugal Canal Market, Karnal, Haryana (India) through its Manager/Authorized Representative.

3.     Tata Unistore Limited, 1^st floor Empire Plaza 2, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Chandan Nagar, Vikhroli WestMumbai, Maharashtra 400083, India through its Manager/Authorized Representative.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

      

 Argued by: Complainant in person.

                    Shri Akash Chawla, counsel for OP no.3.

                    OPs no.1 and 2 exparte.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant had ordered a Nokia Mobile Handset, Model Nokia 8.1 64 GB, on October 23^rd 2019 through Tata Cliq Inline shopping website and after two three days he received his Nokia Handset IMEI no.356964092242764 and he had paid an amount of Rs.12,951/- the cost of the mobile set. After two-three days complainant realized that the said mobile set was not working properly and heating automatically, also he saw linings on the display of his handset. He saw these linings only at the time of receiving or making calls. Immediately on 28^th day of October 2019 complainant requested for return of this handset but unfortunately his return order was declined by the TATA Cliq Services on 31^st day of October, 2019. In the month of November, 2019 complainant visited at the nearest Nokia Service Centre i.e. OP no.2 and at that time OP no.2 did some settings in the cell phone and he assured the complainant that now he had changed the settings and in future he will not face such kind of problem in this handset, and on this visit there was no any service job sheet of any kind of acknowledgement was issued to the complainant, this was just a verbal conversation between the complainant and the service centre. After few days the same problem occurred in the mobile set and complainant requested for return of the mobile set but his request was declined. In the month of December 2019 customer sent an e-mail to the Nokia Customer Services regarding his problem and requested for replacement but his handset was not replaced and as a result he received an email in which customer was guided to follow some technical steps. Even after following these technical steps the problem was still not resolved. Thereafter, complainant again visited the OP no.2 and submitted his handset and this time some software updation was done by the service centre and handset was delivered after repair on 03.01.2020. After few days, the same problem occurred in the hand set and service centre kept the handset and this time also employee of service centre update the software and deliver the handset on 18.01.2020 but after few days again the problem was as it is. Complainant visited the OP no.2 on 07.02.2020, then on 20.03.2021, each and every time complainant was harassed. On 08.03.2020 complainant registered online complaint and on 14.03.2020 he received a remark that the complaint has been resolved but actually the phone was not repaired and was still lying in the service centre. Lateron 2^nd day of June 2020 when complainant had suffered a lot, he again visited at Nokia Service Centre Karnal, and his mobile set was replaced by the company. After replacement of the old mobile set with new one again in the month of March, 2021, complainant faced the same problem in the mobile set. When complainant reached OP no.2 on 08.04.2021 for repair of the his replaced mobile set then official of the OP no.2 demanded an amount of Rs.18019/- for repair of that mobile set which was purchased in Rs.12951/-. Complainant has also an audio recording of conversation which was done on 19.05.2020 between complainant and Mr. Lakhwinder (Manager of Nokia Head Office Banglore), it was assured that it will be his responsibility to provide the complainant extended warranty for this handset. It is averred that from the first day of purchase of the mobile set complainant never enjoyed the handset, even after replacement there was same problem in this handset. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs no.1 and 2 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 22.02.2022 of this Commission.

3.             OP no.3 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.3 operates through its brand name “Tata Cliq” and “Tata Cliq Luxury” which are the online technology platform (marketplace) accessible through web/mobile application (Tata Cliq/ Tata Cliq Luxury), and operated by the OP which facilitates Sellers to display their product listings and other data with intention to sell them online to the buyers who visit. It is further pleaded that actual sale takes place between the seller and the Buyer and that Tata Cliq is classified as an “Intermediary” as per the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The complainant has not suffered any mental or physical or financial loss or in convenience due to any act or omission of the OP. There is no allegations against the OP no.3, as the grievance of the complainant is against the manufacturer. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of order history Ex.C1, copy of prepaid order amount Ex.C2, copy of work estimate Ex.C3, copy of delivery notes Ex.C4 to Ex.C9, copy of complaint details Ex.C10, copy of messages Ex.C11 to Ex.C13, copy of email dated 08.04.2021 Ex.C14, copy of email dated 07.04.2021 Ex.C15, copy of email dated 04.04.2021 Ex.C16, copy of email dated 30.03.2021 Ex.C17, copy of email dated 26.03.2021 Ex.C18, copy of email dated 22.03.2021 Ex.C19, copy of email dated 27.02.2020 Ex.C20, copy of email dated 01.02.2020 Ex.C21, copy of email dated 01.02.2020 Ex.C22, copy of email dated 15.01.2020 Ex.C23, copy of email dated 07.01.2020 Ex.C24, photographs of mobile set Ex.C25, copy of job sheet dated 22.01.2022 Ex.C26 and closed the evidence on 06.04.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Bhavika Indalkar Ex.RW1/A and closed the evidence on 17.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP no.3 and have gone through the case file carefully.

8.             Complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently submitted that he purchased a Nokia Handset amounting to Rs.12,951/- through online. After two-three days of its purchase, mobile set was not working properly and heating automatically, also linings on the display of his handset at the time of receiving or making calls. He had made several complaints with OP no.2 i.e. service centre of the manufacturer of the mobile set in question but official of the OP no.2 failed to rectify the defect despite their best efforts and lastly on 02.06.21020 mobile set was replaced by the company. After replacement of the old mobile set with new one again in the month of March, 2021, he faced the same problem in the mobile set. He reached OP no.2 on 08.04.2021 for repair of the his replaced mobile set then official of the OP no.2 demanded an amount of Rs.18019/- for repair of that mobile set which was purchased for Rs.12951/- and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for OP no.3, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OP no.3 operates through its brand name “Tata Cliq” and “Tata Cliq Luxury” which are the online technology platform (marketplace) accessible through web/mobile application (Tata Cliq/ Tata Cliq Luxury), and operated by the OP which facilitates Sellers to display their product listings and other data with intention to sell them online to the buyers who visit. He further argued that complainant has not suffered any mental or physical or financial loss or in convenience due to any act or omission of the OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP no.3.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           Admittedly, the mobile set in question has become defective in the warranty period and the same was replaced with new one on 02.06.2020.

12.            To prove his case, complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of order history Ex.C1, copy of prepaid order amount Ex.C2, copy of work estimate Ex.C3, copy of delivery notes Ex.C4 to Ex.C9, copy of complaint details Ex.C10, copy of messages Ex.C11 to Ex.C13, copy of email dated 08.04.2021 Ex.C14, copy of email dated 07.04.2021 Ex.C15, copy of email dated 04.04.2021 Ex.C16, copy of email dated 30.03.2021 Ex.C17, copy of email dated 26.03.2021 Ex.C18, copy of email dated 22.03.2021 Ex.C19, copy of email dated 27.02.2020 Ex.C20, copy of email dated 01.02.2020 Ex.C21, copy of email dated 01.02.2020 Ex.C22, copy of email dated 15.01.2020 Ex.C23, copy of email dated 07.01.2020 Ex.C24, photographs of mobile set Ex.C25, copy of job sheet dated 22.01.2022 Ex.C26. It is evident from delivery notes Ex.C4 to Ex.C9 approached the OP no.2 on several occasion for repair of the mobile set in question initially purchased by the complainant with the complaint of heating problem, blank display, linings on display, completely dead etc. but OP failed to rectify the defect. It is also evident from messages Ex.C10 to Ex.C12 OP said the complainant that the mobile set is repaired and updated the same and ready for collection. Meaning thereby, the mobile set was having problem in the warranty period. It is also evident from the emails Ex.C14 to Ex.C16 in which OP apologized for the delay for repair of the mobile set. It is also evident Ex.C25 from the photographs of the mobile set the linings shows on the display of the mobile set. It is also evident from the work estimate Ex.C3, OP no.2 demanded an amount of Rs.18019/- for repair of that mobile set which was purchased in Rs.12951/-. Hence, it is has been proved on record that the replaced mobile set in question is also having manufacturing defects.   

13.           To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, OPs no.1 and 2 have not placed on record any evidence and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Hence, the evidence produced by the complainant are unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Thus, the act of the OPs no.1 and 2 amounts to deficiency in service.

13.           In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the defect occurred in the mobile set during the warranty period.

14.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to repair the mobile set in question free of costs. It is made clear if the said mobile set is not repairable then the same will be replaced with new one of the same costs. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:20.07.2022

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                         Member