Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/2396/2009

Sri M.N. Somashekar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nokia India Pvt., Ltd., South Regional office, - Opp.Party(s)

IP

01 Jun 2010

ORDER


IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN
No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020
consumer case(CC) No. CC/2396/2009

Sri M.N. Somashekar
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Nokia India Pvt., Ltd., South Regional office,
Care Point, Service Center
Nokia India Pvt., Ltd.,
Trancel Solution & Services, Nokia Priority Dealer NPBG22
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Date of Filing: 14.10.2009 Date of Order: 01.06.2010 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 01ST DAY OF JUNE 2010 PRESENT Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 2396 OF 2009 M.N. Somashekar No. 108, 42nd Cross, 8th Block Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 082 Complainant V/S 1. South Regional Office Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. Prestige Tech Park # 2A, Jupiter Block, 3rd Floor Sarjapur, Marathahalli Ring Road Kadabeesanahalli, Bangalore 560 087 2. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. 5th Floor, Tower A & B Cybergreen, DLF Cyber City Sector 25A, Gurgaon Haryana 122 002 3. TRANCEL Solution and Services Nokia Priority Dealer NPBG22 No. 27/44, 9th Main Road Jayanagar III Block Bangalore 560 011 4. Care Point Service Centre, # 199F, 1st Floor 27th Cross, 7th B Main 3rd Block Jayanagar Bangalore Opposite Parties ORDER By the Member Smt. D. Leelavathi This complaint is filed by the complainant claiming for refund of Rs. 34,700/-. The complainant had purchased NOKIA N 97 having IMEI NO. 354225032048253 on 27th June 2009 at Trancel Solution and Services. After taking the basic demo for phone usage from OP 3 complainant started using the phone immediately. Complainant charged the phone battery using the supplied charger of NOKIA N 97 phone for 8 hours. For the next two days as complainant was using the phone complainant experienced problems of receiving the calls and phone not responding to any of the keys, phone was hangs. The phone would automatically restart it had to be switched off and needed to be restart again. Complainant went back and after two days and gave the phone for service. OP 3 gave back the phone within an hour saying it had been updated. But to the surprise of the complainant after testing the phone it immediately hanged. Complainant showed the same to the service desk. They disabled the function and told me that the particular function is having a software problem and to wait. Problems continued to surface and complainant lodged a complaint with ASK NOKIA. Nokia service complaint registry on 22nd July 2009. After repeated attempts to get the phone back it was returned as repaired. Even after this it continued to give problems and complainant contacted Nokia helpline for request for lodging the complaint. Service executive was very blunt asking complainant to go to Nokia Care and deposited the phone for service and did not entertain any complaint for further escalation and service. Further, complainant also contacted Mr. Mohan Nokia Service Head for Karnataka on 29.09.2009. He offered no assistance and asked the complainant to contact Nokia Care. Complainant contacted Nokia Help line. They gave complainant with complaint No. 1/828599734 with a statement of resolution and escalation of complaint within 48 hours. When on 08.10.2009 I contacted Nokia help line for the status service executive told me that they have replaced the hand set and I can collect the handset from Nokia Care where I had deposited. I checked with the service executive whether a new hand set has been given or old set has been repaired. Service executive assured me that a new set has been given and asked me to collect the hand set. I went to Nokia care point and they handed me a new Nokia N 97 which was evident to the naked eye that it was a used hand set and on further examination it was found to have personal information of a Nokia client with the contact number stated. Further, the same was brought to the notice of Manager of Nokia Care Point and he displayed 3 handsets and offered me to chose one of them and took an undertaking from their that the N 97 phone handed over to me is swapped and reconditioned phone having IMEI number 354225032040664. Since, Nokia Pvt. and opposite party No. 1 to 2 along with Transcend Solution and Services and care point No. 1 has sold me a defective mobile phone. It is therefore, prayed that the opposite party be directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant Rs. 34,700/- with cost and compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment. 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Opposite party No. 3 & 4 remained exparte. Opposite party No. 1 & 2 put in their appearance and filed defence version. Opposite parties submits that the complaint is a gross abuse of law. The complaint is based on false, frivolous and baseless grounds. From the contents of the complaint it is very much clear that it has been filed to gain unnecessary attention and publicity by raising a dispute against the answering opposite party, a multinational company of repute. The complaint has no material basis and merits and false to spell out the existence of any valid cause of action under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date. 3. The liability of answering opposite parties does not arise and that there was no manufacturing defect in the handset in question since the opposite party being a MNC of repute takes all reasonable care and carries out best quality control and tests of international level before releasing the products to market for sale. 4. As a matter of fact the ill founded and false allegation of the complainant is nothing but only his state of mind and personal views and perception. The complainant has filed with intent to harass and also to compel him to submit to illegal and unreasonable demands to suit his subtle design. The omissions on the part of complainant to adduce basic evidence clearly reflects the manifest intention to achieve wrongful gain. 5. The prayer of the complainant for refunding the cost of the mobile set in question amounting to Rs. 34,700/- deserves to be dismissed. The claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation, the complainant has failed to prove damages for which he is seeking compensation and cost. 6. Affidavit evidence filed. 7. The points for consideration are: 1. Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 34,700/-? 8. The complainant has purchased the mobile hand set N 97 Dated 27.06.2009 at Trancel Solutions. Within a month the mobile started giving problems. Opposite parties did not repair the same even after the complainant visited several times. It is an admitted fact that negligence on the part of opposite parties is obvious. Therefore, it is simply proven fact that the opposite parties are deficient in giving service to the complainant. The absence of opposite parties No. 3 & 4 shows that they have nothing to say regarding the complaint. The defence taken by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is not proved. Opposite parties No. 3 & 4 remained exparte. They have not contested the complaint. The case of the complainant shall have to be accepted as true and correct. So in view of all these reasons stated above I feel that it is just, fair, justified and reasonable for the opposite parties to pay back Rs. 34,700/-. It is not a fit case for giving cost and compensation. In the result I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 9. The complaint is allowed. Opposite parties No. 1 to 4 are jointly & severally directed to refund Rs. 34,700/- the cost of the mobile to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. After receipt of the amount the complainant has to handover the set to opposite party. No order as to cost. 10. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 11. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 01ST DAY OF JUNE 2010. Order accordingly, MEMBER We concur the above findings. MEMBER PRESIDENT