Orissa

Cuttak

CC/157/2015

Susil Kumar Mohapatra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nokia India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

P K Behera

25 Oct 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.157/2015

Susil Kumar Mohapatra,

Vill:Kodagambhir,PO:Chandigaon,
P.S/Dist:Bhadrak.

At present:C/o:Niranjan Beura,

At:Samadhi Patana(Jobra),

PO:Collellge Square,Dist:Cuttack.                                      .… Complainant.

 

Vrs.

1.         (The CEO,TEC.)

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.

18 th floor,Building-5,Tower-A’DLF City

Fiber City,Phane No.III,Gurgaon,Haryana.

 

2.        Nokia Corporate Office,

Tower A & B,5^th Floor,Sector-25-A,DLF,City,Phase,3,Gurgaon,Haryana

 

3.        Area Manager,

Jagannath Enterprises,

Nokia Care,Hotel Vaishali Complex,

Besides Shree Leathers,Dolamundai,

Cuttack-753001.                                                                              … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Sri Bichitrananda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:    30.12.2013

Date of Order:  25.10.2017

 

For the complainant  :             Sri P.K.Behera,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps                 :             None.

    

Smt. Sarmistha Nath,Member(W).

 

                The complainant being a consumer has filed this complaint before this Forum against the O.Ps for Redressal of his grievances under the Consumer Protection Act,1986(Act in short) in terms of his prayer made in the complaint petition.  The allegations made in the complaint are with regard to deficiency in service provided and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps.

1. The case of the complainant in  brief is that the complainant had submitted his Nokia hand set bearing No.E5-00 vide IMEI No.353277054229510 for repair of the same in Nokia Care Centre at Dolamundai,Cuttack,Odisha on 04.06.2015.  The In -charge of Nokia Care Center received the hand set vide token No.113 dt.4.6.15 as stands in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure-1.  On 19.6.15 the In-charge of the said Nokia Care Centre informed the complainant that the motherboard of the said set has been damaged and he charged Rs.1600/- towards the cost of the motherboard.  After payment of the said amount the technical person fixed the new motherboard and handed over the set to the complainant without any checking.  When complainant used the said hand set in his house, it did not function properly.  Thereafter the complainant sent the mobile set to the said Nokia Care Centre for further repair.  The technician informed the complainant to change the SIM tray for functioning of the set.  Again the said Nokia Care Centre received the hand set of the complainant vide token No.329 dt.22.6.15 (Annxure-2).
2. The technician informed the complainant to receive the set free of cost within two weeks after removal of the effect if any.  But after two weeks, the technician informed the complainant to pay repair charge of Rs.100/-.  The complainant agrees to pay the said amount at the time of receiving of the hand set.  Lastly on 1st September,2015, the technician informed the complainant that the set could not be repaired in this Care Centre and advised to the complainant to repair the set outside.
3. Being harassed by O.Ps on 12.09.15 and 19.9.15 the complainant has served the legal notice to O.Ps requesting them to take step to repair the hand set but in vain.
4. The complainant further alleges that the servicing centre uses duplicate spare parts in lieu of new spare parts and charges money for the same.
5. The O.Ps did not appear in the case, so they were set exparte and even they did not participate in the hearing. Thus we are constrained to believe the uncontroverted statements of the complainant.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record and documents filed by the complainant and found that though the O.P No.3 has received the amount from the complainant for repair of mobile hand set .But the complainant has not given the purchase bill of the hand set/not given the purchase date of the hand set.  Moreover since the repair charges are already paid we apprehend that the hand set was not within the warranty period.  However since the complainant has alleged that the hand set is not repaired properly and the O.Ps have neither participated in the hearing nor submitted any written version, we conclude that the O.Ps are at fault.

ORDER

The prayer of the complainant is allowed exparte against the O.Ps partly.  The O.Ps are directed to repair the said hand set as required for the purpose free of cost.

                Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 25^th day of October,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                             (Smt. Sarmistha Nath) 

                                                                                                                                               Member(W).

                                                                                                                                                       (  Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                                                                           President.

 

                                                       (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                                                                 Member.