In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 307 / 2007 1) Sri Munazza Sadaf, 14B, Karaya Road, Kolkata-17. ---------- Complainant ---Verses--- 1) Nokia Limited, 2, Millennium IT Park, Plot no. 12, Block-DN, Bidhannagar, Salt Lake. 2) Nokia Care Centre, 37, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-17. ---------- Opposite Party Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President. Sri T.K. Bhattacharya, Member Order No. 1 9 Dated 0 9 / 0 2 / 2 0 1 0 . Complainant Sri Munazza Sadaf by filing a petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act on 10.9.07 has prayed for issuing an order directing the o.ps. Nokia Ltd. and Nokia Care Centre o.p. nos.1 and 2 respectively to pay compensation for harassment and financial loss and mental agony of Rs.80,000/- and to replace the mobile set purchased by the complainant with a brand set of similar model and to pass any order or orders as the forum may deem fit and proper. It is the specific case of the complainant that he purchased a cellular phone of Nokia brand, model no.3230 being IMEI no.359362007827554 from Link Telephone Pvt. Ltd. o.p. no.3 (his name has been deleted vide order no.8 dt.4.9.08 because his office no longer exists at 20, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-17). After a few days of purchase the said mobile started giving trouble and ultimately, in the last week of February, 2007 the said mobile stopped functioning. Complainant brought the mobile phone to o.p. no.2 and informed the defect found in the mobile phone and the o.p. no.2 agreed to replace the same. But to his utter surprise on 27.3.07 when the complainant submitted her mobile for replacement she was offered a used mobile phone instead of new mobile phone although o.p. no.2 promised to replace the same by a new one. However, the complainant accepted the used mobile and also found that the replaced mobile phone bearing no.355694000500562 being IMEI no.35569400767972 and that telephone set was not working properly and found non working. Complainant being a professional man depends greatly on the mobile phone due to such acts of the o.ps. he has suffered a lot and he informed all about the matter to the o.ps., but finding no other alternative he has filed this case against the o.ps. with the aforesaid prayer. Decision with reasons: - It appears on perusal of the record that 8.8.08 was fixed for S/R and subsequently, some other dates were given and ultimately 15.9.09 was fixed for filing w/v by the o.p., but even on 15.9.09 as the o.p. did not appear and file the w/v, the case is heard ex parte. Complainant purchased a Nokia mobile phone being IMEI no.359362007827554 from o.p. no.3. It is evident from annex-A. The mobile phone started giving trouble and complainant brought it to the notice of o.p. no.2 and he agreed to replace the mobile and on 27.3.07 o.p. no.2 replaced the mobile phone bearing IMEI no.35694000500562, but with utter surprise complainant found that it was replaced by a used mobile set. That used set also gave trouble and the complainant complained it to o.p. no.2. It was repaired, but again it gave trouble and complainant has shown it with the help of job sheet, annex-B. Complainant sent letter to the Manager, Operations, Nokia Ltd. o.p. no.1 informing his grievance about the mobile phone and he also ventilated his grievance to him about the replaced mobile set given to him by o.p. no.2, annex-C. We have also perused the affidavit sworn in by Arghya Sen, Advocate of the complainant contending interalia the main allegation of the complainant about the mobile set purchased by the complainant and replaced the used mobile phone. We have also perused the BNA filed by ld. Lawyer of complainant on 11.5.09 wherein he has also complained about his grievances with regard to the mobile phone. Having due regard to the circumstances and evidence both on affidavit and documentary we are of the opinion that o.ps. supplied a defective mobile set and the replaced mobile set as supplied by o.p. no.2 was also defective for which, complainant sustained loss. So, complainant is entitled to get the relief for defect of the goods supplied him by the O.Ps. Hence, Ordered, That the petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 is allowed ex parte against o.p. nos.1 and 2. O.p. nos.1 and 2 are directed to refund Rs.8950/- (Rupees eight thousand nine hundred fifty) only jointly and/or severally to complainant and pay compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only. O.p. nos.1 and 2 are directed to make payment grant total of Rs.14,950/- (Rupees fourteen thousand nine hundred fifty) only positively within forty five days from the date of communication of this order, failing which, it will carry interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization. Fees paid are correct. Supply copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees. _____Sd-_______ ______Sd-________ MEMBER PRESIDENT | 
