BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.510 of 2015

Date of Instt. 01.12.2015

Date of Decision :17.01.2017

Rajni wife of Vikas Prabhakar resident of ES-187, Makhdoompura, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Commercial Plaza, Radisson Hotel, NH-8, Mahilpur, New Delhi through its General Manager.

2. M/s Arora Mobiles, Hotel Preet Market, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar through its manager/prop.

3. Nokia Care, Visionway Communication, Ground Floor, Jabbal Tower, Beside Grand Mall, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar through its authorised Signatory.

........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Dinesh Kumar Jassi, Adv. Counsel for complainant.

Sh. Vishal Chaudhary, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1 and 3.

Opposite Party No.2 already exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint presented by complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant purchased a Mobile handset Nokia Asha 230 Black dual sim bearing IMEI No.353052060324468 and 353052060324476 from the opposite party No.2 vide bill dated 30.12.2014 for a sum of Rs.3300/-. At the time of purchasing the above said mobile, the complainant was assured by the opposite party No.2 that the above handset is free from any defect. It was also assured that there is a warranty of one year from the date of purchase of mobile set. It was also assured to the complainant that in case of any technical or mechanical problem or manufacturing defect in the mobile set, due service will be provided to the complainant through their authorize service centre and in case the mobile suffered from incurable defect then the said mobile will be replaced. Opposite Party No.1 is dealing in Nokia for its sale in India through their authorized dealers and the opposite party No.2 is dealer and the opposite party No.3 is its authorize service centre/company official complaint Centre.

2. That after purchasing the above said mobile from the opposite party No.2, it was observed by the complainant after few months that the above said mobile set was not working properly. It was not getting switch on. That after observing the same, the complainant immediately approached the opposite party No.2 on 10.04.2015 and submitted her complaint before the opposite party No.2 but it is a matter of ill-luck that more than one month the above said the opposite party No.2 gave proper response to the complainant or to return the mobile set after removing the defect from it. The complainant has approached the opposite party No.3 on 18.05.2015 and intimate regarding the defect in the mobile set and they returned the mobile set on the same day on the assurance that the mobile is now in proper working condition and all the defects have been removed but it is a matter of ill-luck that more than two month that the above said mobile set was again not working properly. It was not getting switch on. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.3 on 10.08.2015. Despite of various visits reminder and requests the opposite party No.2 and 3 have failed to provide sufficient service to the complainant even failed to answer the phone calls of the complainant which clearly shows the malafide intention to the opposite party No.2 and 3 and necessity arose to file the complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to return the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.3300/- or replace the mobile set with new one and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and award cost of proceedings of the complaint Rs.11,000/- and to pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1000/-.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties and accordingly opposite party No.2 despite service did not come present and ultimately he was proceeded against exparte and whereas opposite parties No.1 and 3 appeared through their counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint under reply is not maintainable against the answering opposite parties and further there is no cause of action arose against the answering opposite parties and further the complainant suppressed the material facts and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed and further the complainant is barred to file the present complaint because of his own act and conduct. Hence no relief can be granted to the complainant and further alleged that the real facts are that the complainant/customer visited the office of opposite party No.3 on 10.05.2015 and the engineer after checking the handset before issuing the job sheet told the complainant that there is liquid in the handset and handset is liquid damaged and if the handset is liquid damages then the answering opposite parties are not responsible for the repair of the handset and as per the warranty terms and conditions, if the handset is found physically damaged or tempered, the warranty of the said handset is void and if the customer wants to repair his handset then the customer should pay the charges for the repair. Then the answering opposite parties got issued the job sheet and it was clearly mentioned in the job sheet that the warranty of the handset is denial due to liquid damage and the complainant refused to repair the handset with charges and received back his handset after making signature on the job sheet and copy of the same is already attached by the complainant. Copy of terms and conditions of warranty repair is Annexure A and photographs with remarks send by the head office is Annexure B. This fact was told to the complainant but the complainant even refused to collect his handset and also refused to pay the charges for the repair and handset is still lying with the answering opposite party No.3. As such the answering opposite parties are not responsible for the act and conducts done by opposite parties and only on this score, the present complaint filed by the complainant which may kindly be dismissed against the answering opposite parties. On merits para No.1 to 3 of the complaint are admitted but the remaining contents of the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove her case, complainant herself tendered into evidence her duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence.

5. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. OPW1/A and further tendered into evidence some documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 and 3.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. The factum of purchase of mobile handset Nokia Asha 230 Black dual sim bearing IMEI No.353052060324468 and 353052060324476 from the OP on 30.12.2014 for a sum of Rs.3300/- is not in dispute. It was also established that there is warranty of one year of the said mobile and it is also established that some defect occurred in the mobile set and these factum are not denied by the OP rather the OP alleged that the mobile was deposited to OP No.3 service centre on 10.08.2015 and it was got checked by an engineer of OP No.3 prior to issue a job sheet and also clearly told the complainant that there is a liquid in the handset and as such handset is liquid damaged and if the handset is liquid damages then the OPs are not responsible for the repair of the handset free of cost on under warranty as per terms and conditions of the warranty and further told if he wants to get it repair then he has pay charges then the complainant get returned the said mobile handset after putting his signature on the job sheet dated 10.08.2015 Ex.C2.

8. The version put forth by OP could not be controverted by the complainant by leading any effective evidence to show that there is no liquid damage rather if we go through the job sheet Ex.C2 wherein it is categorically mentioned that the warranty is denied being reason the damages caused to the mobile set is due to the liquid damage and it is also established the complainant got back the mobile set after putting his signature on the job sheet Ex.C2. The complainant alleged in the complaint that there is a problem in the set i.e. not getting switch on. But this problem is not established on the file by the complainant by examining any expert witness or by getting the mobile set checked from any Laboratory. So, under these circumstances, we find that the complainant could not able to establish the charges as made in the complaint therefore we reached to the conclusion that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

17.01.2017 Member President