DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.688/2009
Sh. Sunil Verma,
F-1690, Tigri Colony,
New Delhi-110062 ….Complainant
Versus
1. Nokia Care
S-10, Green Park Extn.,
Near Uppahar Cinema,
New Delhi-110019
2. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.
2nd Floor Commercial Plaza
Radisson Hotel, NH-8,
Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037 ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 08.09.09 Date of Order : 19.12.18
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant’s friend namely Mr. Raju had purchased a mobile handset, Model No.5200 from the authorized dealer of OP No.2 on 07.02.08 amounting to Rs.5500/- and gave the same to the complainant for using. It is submitted that after the purchase of the said mobile set it never worked properly and the complainant visited the OP No.1 on 05.07.08 and handed over the same to OP No.1 vide job sheet No.15002286252 and staff of OP No.1 assured the complainant that after servicing of the mobile, the complainant would not have to face any problem again. It is submitted that on 08.07.08 the complainant came to take his mobile back and the staff of OP No.1 while returning the handset said to the complainant that the mobile handset was properly repaired and defect free. It is submitted that to the great astonishment of the complainant within 3 days of serving the said handset had to be given to OP No.1 vide job sheet No.150028778 dated 12.07.09 with new problem ‘net work signal and FM Radio was also not working properly. It is submitted that the complainant was assured by the staff of OP No.1 and told to take the same after a few days. However, the said defects could not be cured on the due date. The complainant apprised the same to the said staff of the OP No.1, however on 26.07.18 the staff of OP No. 1 gave other old mobile set bearing serial No. 356640005448868, Product Code- Nokia 6600 to the complainant and stated that the said mobile set was non-repairable and complainant could use it for a week and after that period the said mobile set would be replaced by a new one. It is submitted that only after three days the hand set which was given to complainant started problem of speaker as well as voice. The complainant spoke Mr. Sandeep (Mobile No.9899676856) to take handset back but he had written a hand note “ use this handset for a week & we will change handset after a week” on job sheet No. 1500287778. It is further submitted that after a week on 6th August 2008, the complainant went to Mr. Sandeep to return old Nokia 6600 and to get new Nokia 5200 as promised but the staff of OP No.1 stated to take another set on next Monday. The complainant met another staff of OP No.1 namely Mr. Love he also assured that the complainant and requested to use this set for a week as they have not received any new handset from OP No.2 but after having a long discussion with him, he agreed to submit Nokia 6600 against job sheet No.1500292845 saying swapped handset replaced with 5200 again. The complainant sent several emails to the OP-2 requesting to provide a new handset but to no avail. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:
- Direct the OPs to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.5,500/-, the cost of the handset.
- Direct the OP No.2 to give a brand new mobile set worth of Rs.5,500/- which was paid by the complainant.
- Direct the OPs to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the act of the OPs.
- Direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation cost.
No written statement has been filed on behalf of the OP No.1.
In the written statement OP No.2 has inter-alia stated that as per the record available with OP No.1 the handset in dispute being Nokia 5200 bearing IMEI No.358 659 011 442 341 was received for the first time on 05.07.08 vide job sheet No. 1500286252 with the reported fault of “poor incoming audio quality and blank display.” The handset was repaired and delivered to the complainant. The handset was again received on 12.07.08 vide job sheet No.1500287778 with the reported fault of “bad transmission”. The complainant at the time of depositing the handset requested the OP No.1 to swap the handset with different model as the complainant was not compatible with original model was repaired. The OP No.1 in order to avoid any inconvenience to the complainant agreed to swap the handset with the Nokia 6600 and the same was delivered to the complainant on 26.07.08 to his complete satisfaction. The complainant again approached OP No.1 on 06.08.08 vide job sheet No.1500292845 with the report of “phone restart/reboot”. The handset was found to be having minor software related problems but as the complainant requested the OP No.1 to replace the same so that the handset does not create any problem ever. The handset was replaced and delivered to the complainant. Thereafter, the handset was never received for any further examination/rectification. It is submitted that the OPs have provided the best possible services to the complainant by repairing his handset. The complainant has been filed with no genuine cause against the OPs but merely an attempt on the part of the complainant to take undue advantage of the OP-2 and to extend the scope and advantage of the limited warranty. OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
In the rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.2 the complainant has denied that the said handset was swapped with the different model on the request of the complainant as he was not compatible with original model. It is submitted that the complainant had used the said handset for five months hence the compatibility with the handset does not arise as falsely alleged by the OPs. It is submitted that the complainant was handed over a old handset against the job sheet dated 06.08.08 on the assurance that they will provide a new handset after receiving the same from the company however the same has not been done till date.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Ms. Kalsi, Customer Service Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP No.2.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant and OP No.2.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant and OP No.2. We have also gone through the file very carefully.
Complainant has placed on record copy of the Tax Invoice dated 07.02.08 for an amount of Rs.55,000/- as Annexure-1. The complainant filed the copies of service job sheets dated 05.07.08, 12.07.08 & 06.08.08 as Annexure -2 to 4. Various emails were exchanged between the parties as Annexure-5. In the email dated 27.02.09 sent to the complainant wherein it is stated that “ This is as per our telecom today your replacement (swap) ready at concerned Nokia Care Centre. The complainant vide email dated 04.05.09 sent to OPs stated that “ This is loud & clear from your side that you all are failed to provide me new handset as I requested to you yesterday in appended mail & on phone also.”
It is evident from the record that the OPs have neither repaired the handset of the complainant to the entire satisfaction of the complainant nor replaced the same with new one despite submitting the same on many occasions with the service centre i.e. OP No..1. It amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. During the course of proceedings dated 18.12.18 an offer was made on behalf of the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards full and final settlement which is not accepted by the counsel of the complainant.
In view of the above discussion, we hold the OPs guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, allow the complaint and direct the OPs jointly and severally to pay Rs. 5,500/-, the cost of the mobile handset. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,500/- for harassment and mental agony undergone by the complainant including cost of litigation.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order failing which OPs shall become liable to pay interest 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.5,500/- from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
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 19.12.2018
