THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C.319/2013

Dated this the 3rd day of March 2017

                     (Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.                         :  President)

                          Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A                         : Member

                          Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB              : Member    

ORDER

Present: Beena Joseph, Member:

            This petition was filed on 26.06.2015.  The crux of the complaint is that complainant had purchased Nokia Lumia 720 mobile from 2nd opposite party as on 27.03.2014 spending Rs.16,506.55.  Soon after the purchase on 28.03.2014 the phone showed problems regarding battery back up and getting over heated.  This was intimated to the dealer second opposite party on 31.03.2014 and set was handed over to them in packed condition, demanding replacement.  Second opposite party received the phone agreeing to replace it, within one week but on 01.04.2014, they informed that  replacement is not possible because the phone having only software issue and they informed that Company started Nokia Care at Coimbatore , they  updated the software of the mobile and it will not show any more problem in future.  The mobile was returned on 04.04.14.  Even after rectifying the defect the above problem repeated.  Which informed to the dealer, who refuses to attend the complaint and directed the customer to approach Nokia Care.  The above phone used by the  petitioner up to 17.08.2014.  Then it became dead.  So he approached Nokia Care at Calicut, who is the third opposite party in the above matter.  They issued a Job sheet on 18.08.2014 and informed the complainant that, they will send the phone to the head office for replacement.  After wards no response from the opposite parties.  He issued e- mail to opposite parties on 26.08.14 to which, he received a reply customer care had forwarded the matter to backend team to process the request.  On 05.09.14 Petitioner received a call from Nokia Service centre Calicut informing that replacement of phone was received and he was directed to collect the same.  On 09.09.14 complainant approached the service centre and he found that the phone offered to complaint was not a new set and that was in an open condition with full of dust and scratches especially in the ear piece area and camera.  These facts brought to the notice of the executives of the service centre, who was not ready to accept the contentions but he was in a hurry and forcing the petitioner to sign the Job Sheet, endorsing that petitioner has received a new hand set.  The complainant realized the cheating insisted for a new mobile.  Customer care sought one week time to resolve the issue but there after no response from them.  When complainant contacted the customer care on 20.09.2014 one Mohan kumar informed him that there was no such option for replacement.  Now the handset and accessories remains with Nokia care at Calicut.  So complainant issued lawyer notice to the opposite parties though the notice received but not responded by the opposite party.  The complainant had purchased the handset by spending a heavy amount on the basis of advertisement and publicity given by the opposite party.

            Now the petitioner sustained heavy loss due to the unfair trade practice of opposite parties.  So he sustained heavy tension and loss. Hence he claims compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of the mobile with cost of this petition.

            In this matter Notice issued to both parties.  Opposite party No.1 & 2 notice served but there was no representation on their side.  3rd opposite party appeared before the Forum but no version filed.  Hence all the opposite parties set ex-parte.

            There after complainant filed affidavit and Ext.A1 to A3 marked on his side.  Ext.A1 is the bill dated 27.03.14.  Ext.A2 is the service Job sheet dtd.18.08.14 issued by third opposite party.  Ext.A3 is the lawyer notice and its acknowledgment dtd. 11.11.14.

            The complainant herein proved his case by producing Ext.A1 to A3 before this Forum and there is no contra evidence on the part of opposite parties.  The opposite parties herein abstained from the proceedings and unwilling to answer the allegations.  The attitudes of the opposite parties are to be contempt.  They ought to have settled the matter by giving proper service or replacing the mobile.  From the evidence and documents further shows that the opposite parties had committed illegal trade practice and service deficiency in this matter, which has to be compensated by the opposite parties.  In the result the above petition is allowed.

            We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.16,506.55 (Rupees sixteen thousand five hundred and six and fifty five paisa only)towards the cost of the mobile and to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only)for illegal trade practice and service deficiency and Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost. Comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

Dated this 3rd day of March 2017.

Date of filing: 26.06.2015.

                            SD/-MEMBER                                      SD/-PRESIDENT                       SD/-MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Copy of invoice issued by first opposite party dtd.27.03.2014.

A2. Copy of Service Jobsheet dtd.18.08.2014.

A3. Lawyer notice and its acknowledgment dtd.11.11.14.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant:

Nil

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None

                                                                                                                           Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT