DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 381 of 14.9.2016

                                      Decided on:   12.4.2017

Mandip Singh S/o S.Harcharan Singh R/o 38-B, Dhillon Marg, Model Town, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Nokia India Sales Private Limited (Regd.Office) Flat No.1294, 12^th Floor, Kailash Building, Kastrurba Gandhi Marg-New Delhi-110001.

2.       Mobile Connect,SCO 2473-74, 2^nd Floor, Sector 22-C,Chandigarh (authorized service centre of Nokia).

3.       Emm Ess Refrigeration, Dhillon Marg, Model Town, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                       Sh.M.L.Sharma,Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 ex-parte.                                      

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

1.       The complainant purchased one mobile phone make Nokia Model Nokia Lumia 1520 from Op no.3 vide invoice No.720 on 30.5.2015 for an amount of Rs.46,500/-. It is averred that after a few days of the said purchase, the mobile phone started giving problem and the complainant approached the service centre of the company many times but the problem could not be rectified. Lastly in the month of June/July the complainant deposited the mobile phone with Op no.2 i.e. the service centre of the company at Chandigarh vide job sheet No.109433527/160513/020.After a long period of about 6 months, in the month of February,2016, the service centre replaced the handset of the complainant that too of different model i.e. Swap 950 duel sim in place of Nokia Lumia 1520 and also the replaced handset was of less cost than the handset Nokia Lumia 1520. Thereafter the complainant requested the service centre to replace his mobile phone with Nokia Lumia 1520 but the OP kept on lingering on the matter. The complainant had a talk with the company authorities also but to no use. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act( for short the Act),1986.

2.                On notice, OPs failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against ex-parte.

3.                In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, the sworn affidavit of the complainant alongwith document Ex.C1 and his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                The complainant filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and also gone through the evidence on record.

5.                Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased one mobile phone from OP no.3 on 30.5.2015 for an amount of Rs.46,500/-.It is submitted that after a few days of the said purchase some problem cropped up in the said mobile phone and the complainant approached the service centre of the company but the defect could not be rectified. Lastly in the month of June/July, the complainant deposited the mobile phone with Op no.2 who replaced the mobile phone of the complainant with a different model i.e. Swap 950 duel sim instead of Nokia Lumia 1520. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OPs many times for the replacement of the mobile phone with Nokia Lumia 1520 but the OPs failed to replace the same.

6.                In the present case, though the complainant has alleged that some problem cropped up in the mobile phone and he contacted the service centre of the company many times but he has failed to place on record any job sheet which may show that there ever occurred any problem in the mobile phone during warranty period. He has also failed to place on record any documentary evidence which may show that his mobile phone Nokia Lumia 1520 was replaced with Swap 950 duel sim and that too during the warranty period. As such no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the OPs.

7.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we reach the conclusion that the complaint of the complainant is without any merit and we do hereby dismiss the same without any order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:12.4.2017                

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER