Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/15/2024

Sandeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

NOKIA MOBILE PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

22 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

 

                                                                   Complaint No. 15 of 2024.

                                                                   Date of Instt: 18.01.2024.

                                                                   Date of Order: 22.05.2024

Sandeep Kumar aged 39 years son of Late Sh. Hind Prakash, resident of village Sirsali, Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri. M. No.9350504609

 ….…. Complainant

                             Versus

 

1. NOKIA MOBILE PVT. LTD., Building 9A, 7^th Floor, DLF City Phase III, Cyber City, Sector-25A, Gurugram-122002, Through its authorized signatory/Manager.
2. SINGH MOBILE COMMUNICATION, authorized service centre of Nokia Mobile Pvt. Ltd., 3,4, 1^st Floor, City Mall, Near Adarsh College, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani, Haryana-127021 through its authorized signatory/responsible person.

 

…….Opposite parties.

    

     COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before:        Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member,

                   

Present:   Complainant in person.

                OPs ex parte.

               

 

ORDER

                    In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased one Handset of Nokia 7.2 device from online retailer namely Reliance Digital vide Tax Invoice No.D19R269100568787 dated 12.08.2020. Device was delivered to complainant’s Kolkata address. It is alleged that soon after purchase the handset became defective within warranty period. The device had shown some issues with screen named ghost screen. The complainant contacted Nokia via phone as well as email also. It is alleged that due to Covid-19, the service centres were not operational in Kolkata on regular basis. So complainant could not visit the Nokia service centre immediately. In October 2020 when the complainant came on leave to his home town Sirsali searched Nokia care at Bhiwani and handed over the device at Bhiwani Nokia Care on 20^th October, 2020. The complainant requested the manager of OP no.2 to provide a new device as this device was having manufacturing defect. But, he denied stating that the replacement time is over according to company law. The complainant explained the whole situation and nature of duty being his working in Indian Coast Guard and reason of not submitting device within 30 days. Then he said that he would discuss the matter with his superiors and would try to get a new device. Meanwhile complainant requested him that first try to get a new device and if it is not feasible then repair this one. The complainant contacted with Nokia care Bhiwani, OP no.2 but they neither repaired and nor replaced the same and did not get any solution till 15^th November 2020. Aggrieved with non cooperative behavior of OPs, the complainant warned OPs to replace the device as to  meet his requirement, he had purchased new device under compulsion and requested OPs to refund cost of device Rs. 16,999/- with compensation of Rs. 2000/- as lot of time and money had been wasted in connection with repairing of device. Thereafter on 17^th November 2020, OPs sent a SMS stating that device was ready, kindly collect it from service centre but complainant did not collect the device. Instead of that, the complainant registered a complaint with National Consumer Helpline (NCH) but he did not get any solution. Mr. Shakhar, Manager, OP no.2 claimed that the device had already been delivered to the address of complainant, which was totally a false statement. The complainant had not received any such courier. The respondents did not repair the Hand Set. Now the complainant through this complaint has claimed to get Rs. 16,999/- along with interest, compensation and costs by way of filing present complainant.

2.                Notice to the OPs were sent through registered post and as per tracking report, the delivery of notice was found confirmed. But the OPs failed to appear before the Commission and ultimately, the OPs were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.04.2024 due to non-appearance before the Commission. 

3.                In the evidence, the complainant has made a statement that complaint and other documents attached with main complaint be read in his evidence and closed the evidence on 22.05.2024 and he argued his case personally on the same day.

4.                We have heard the exparte arguments of the complainant wherein he reiterated contents of the complaint and have gone through the entire evidence placed on record by the complainant very carefully and minutely.

5.                After hearing the complainant and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The Complainant has successfully proved his case by placing on record copy of bill Tax Inovice No.D19R269100568787 dated 12.08.2020. Complainant registered his complaint through NCH vide grievance no.2415738 dt. 29.11.2020,2481576 dt. 02.01.2021, 2628843 dt. 20.03.2021, 3609556 dt. 27.06.2022 to get solution to his grievance regarding the defect in handset and to refund the cost of the device for Rs. 16,999/- with compensation. It is further contended that earlier the complainant had approached the opposite parties many times for repairing or replacement of his mobile phone but the same problem was not solved by the opposite parties despite repeated requests which shows negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The OPs did not bother to appear before this Commission despite service of notice and contest the claim of the complainant.  It appears that they have nothing to say in this case to controvert the stand taken by the complainant.  Therefore, the case of the complainant remained unchallenged and un-rebutted. The version of complainant is supported by an affidavit.

6.                In view of the above discussion, this complaint is allowed and we pass an award against the opposite parties directing them to pay Rs.16,999/- alongwith interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization, Rs.1100/- for mental agony and Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses. The device in question is already with OP no.2 on which the claim of the complainant is relinquished. The opposite party no. 1 and 2 are directed to comply the order jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the said amount shall also attract interest @9% p.a.  Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced in open Commission.

Dated: 22.05.2024