Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1447/2015

Amrik Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nokia India Sales - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Shergill

10 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                             

                                                Complaint No.  1447

                                                Instituted on:    09.11.2015

                                                Decided on:       10.08.2016

 

Amrik Singh son of Naranjan Singh, resident of Village Ramgarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Nokia India Sales Pvt. Limited, Registered Office: Flat No.1204, 12^th Floor, Kailash Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110 001 through its MD.

2.             M/s. Ganesh Traders, Patiala Gate, Sangrur, Authorised service centre of Nokia Care, through its proprietor.

3.             Chhabra Communication, Opposite Bus Stand, Sangrur through its proprietor/partner.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

For OP     2              :               Shri Sachin Garg, Adv.

For OPs number 1&3 :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Amrik Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Nokia X-2 Black mobile set bearing IMEI for Rs.8300/- vide invoice dated 11.11.2014 from OP number 3, which was having one year warranty/guarantee. It is further averred that in the month of September, 2015, the mobile in question started to give problems of auto off and become dead and as such the complainant approached Op number 3, who  advised the complainant to approach OP number 2, as such the complainant approached OP number 2, who rectified the defect in the mobile set by replacing some parts, but the OP number 2 did not issue any job sheet.  It is further averred that after a period of ten days, the mobile set again became dead and approached the OP number 2, who kept the mobile set and handed over the mobile set to the complainant after necessary repairs.  It is further averred that in the last week of October, 2015, the mobile set again gave same problem and approached OP number 2, but the OP number 2 put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund him the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.8300/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 1 and 3 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 and 3 were  proceeded exparte.

 

3.             In the reply filed by OP number 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that Op number 2 is not the service provider of OP number 1. In fact Nokia India Limited was taken over by the Microsoft Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. and OP number 2 became the service provider of Microsoft India Private Limited for some time and thereafter the agreement of OP number 2 with the Microsoft India was terminated w.e.f. 30.09.2015, As such, OP number 2 cease to be the service provider either for OP number 1, as such the complaint is not maintainable against OP number 2.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint are also denied in the reply.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 expert report dated 10.10.2015, Ex.C-4 affidavit of Kamalpreet Singh and Ex.C-5 copy of certificate and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 affidavit of Surinder Gupta and Ex.Op2/2  copy of letter regarding termination of agreement with the OP number 2 and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             Ex.C-2 is the copy of the invoice dated 11.11.2014 issued by OP number 3 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.8300/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 3. Further case of the complainant is that after purchase of the mobile set, it became dead and as such approached Op number 2, service centre of Op number 1, who after checking and replacing some parts delivered the mobile set to the complainant.  But, after ten days, the mobile set in question became again dead and the complainant approached Op number 2 and the Op number 2 repaired the mobile set and delivered to the complainant.  Further in the last week of October, 2015, the complainant again approached with the dead mobile to the OP number 2, but the Op number 2 let off the matter on one pretext or the other. On the other hand, the stand of the OP number 2 is that the complainant never approached OP number 1 nor the mobile set was ever repaired and the complainant has produced nothing on record to corroborate this contention that the complainant ever approached the Op number 2 or the mobile set was ever repaired.  Moreover, the learned counsel for the OP number 2 has produced on record Ex.Op2/2 a copy of the letter dated 27.8.2015, wherein in para number 2 it has been stated ‘that now as you are aware, the certificate and service level agreement between the parties is automatically coming to an end on 30^th September, 2015 due to Efflux of time. Please note that MCIPL does not wish to renew/extend the said agreements. As a consequence, all agreements executed between the parties will come to an end on 30^th September, 2015.”  As such, we feel that the complainant has concocted a false story that he approached the OP number 2 in the last week of October, 2015, more so when the agreement between the OP number 2 and 3 had already ended on 30.09.2015.  Moreover, the complainant has not produced an iota of evidence on record to show that he ever approached OP number 2 for the repair of the mobile set, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record. As such, we find no case made out for any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

 

7.             In result, we dismiss the complaint. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 10, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member