Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/14/120

Kanwar Rajinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nokia Mobiles & accessories & Ors - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amarwinder Singh, Adv

20 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                                        Consumer Complaint No. : 120 of 19.09.2014

                                        Date of decision               : 20.02.2015

 

Kanwar Rajinder Singh @ Kanwar Singh, son of Sadhu Singh, resident of House No.85, Gillco Valley, Ropar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.

                                                                                      ......Complainant

                                              Versus

1. Nokia Mobile & Accessories Pvt. Ltd., Regional Office, 2^nd Floor, SCO

   No.367-68, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160022.

2. Nokia Care Centre, Electra Care Quit, Office 11, Opp. Khukhrain

    Bhawan Sector 35-A, Chandigarh.

3. Singh Wallian Di Hatti, Near Indian Bank, Kalgidhar Market, Ropar,

    District Ropar, through its proprietor.

 

                                                                ....Opposite Parties

 

                                       Complaint under Section 11 &12 of the                                         Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

Sh. Amarwinder Singh Advocate, counsel for the complainant

Sh.Tilak Raj, Authorized Agent, for Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2

Opposite Party No. 3 ex-parte

 

 

ORDER

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Kanwar Rajinder Singh @ Kanwar Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To replace the defective mobile set or return cost thereof i.e. Rs.47,200/- along with interest,

iii)     To pay Rs.40,000/- as damage on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice,

iv)     To pay Rs.10,000/-, as costs/litigation expenses,

v)      To award any other relief, which this Froum may deem fit/proper, in the interest of justice.

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 17.10.2013, he had purchased a mobile phone, Model Nokia Lumia 1020, IMEI No.357254051081026 from the O.P. No.3, for a sum of Rs.47,200/- vide bill No.12170.  The O.P. No.3 had given guarantee for the said mobile set for one year and told him that if any problem occurs in the said  mobile set within one year, then the same would be replaced with a new one. The O.P. No. 3 had also delivered him the guarantee card, issued by O.P. No.1. Within 7 months of its purchase, some problems occurred in it, i.e. speaker of the said mobile set was not working properly; audio quality of incoming and outgoing calls was very poor and it used to hang. Therefore, he complained about the said problems to the O.P. No. 3, who told him to get the mobile set checked from the Care centre of O.P. No.1 i.e. O.P. No. 2 at Chandigarh. Accordingly, on 23.06.2014, he approached the O.P. No. 2, who after checking the same, kept the same with it and issued the Job card, saying that he would be informed, telephonically, after repair of the same. He time & again went to Chandigarh to enquire about his mobile set from O.P. No.2. It was on 16.7.2014, when the said mobile set was returned to him telling that there was no problem in the same. When he checked the same there & then, it was found that the problem still persist, as such, he made remark about the same, on the job card, while receiving the mobile set from O.P. No. 2, as the said O.P. had refused to rectify the problem, wrongly stating that there was no problem with the phone set. From all these facts, it is clear that the O.Ps. have committed deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practice, due to which he has suffered mental & physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                 Upon notice of the complaint, written statement was filed on behalf of the O.Ps.  No.1 & 2 taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable, as the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the same is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action has accrued to the complainant to file the same, as no defect was found in the mobile set and it was returned to him on 16.7.2014, after updation of the software. On merits, it is stated that the warranty is given for repair of the defect or to replace the product in case of manufacturing defect. As per own version of the complainant, the set had worked perfectly without any defect for 7 months. It is further stated that no defect was found in the mobile set and after updation of the software, the complainant was called time & again to collect his mobile set, but he failed to collect the same till 16.7.2014. After taking delivery of the mobile set, he gave remarks on the job sheet, with malafide intention just to harass the O.Ps., that his complaint still not resolved. He had come to the O.P. No. 2 only on 23.6.2014, to deposit the mobile set and on 16.7.2014, to collect the same, that too after repeated calls, made by the O.Ps. Thereafter, he never came back with any complaint. There has been no deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.Ps. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same qua the answering O.Ps.

 

4.                None having appeared on behalf of O.P. No.3, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.12.2014.

 

5.                On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavit, Ex. C1, photocopies of documents Ex. C2 to Ex. C4 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the authorized agent for the contesting O.Ps. tendered photocopies of documents Ex. OP-1 to Ex. OP-3 and closed the evidence.

 

6.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the authorized agent for the contesting O.Ps. and gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

7.                The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the mobile set, which he had purchased from O.P. No.3 on 17.10.2013, got defective within its warranty period and on the advice of O.P. No.3, he took the same to O.P. No.2 i.e. Nokia Care Center for rectification of the defects occurred in it. The engineer of O.P. No.2 issued a job card dated 23.6.2014  (Ex.C-4) and kept the said mobile set and told him to collect the same on getting telephonic message after rectification of the defects in it. As no message was received from the said engineer of O.P. No.2, therefore,  on 16.07.2014, he went to O.P. No.2, whose engineer handed over the mobile set in question to him saying that the defects pointed out by him have been removed. However, on usage of the set there & then, it was found by him that it was not working properly. He told about the same to the said engineer and also put a note on the job card itself that he was not satisfied with the service and he was harassed for one month and within one month, he visited Nokia Care, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh three times. Inspite of that the said engineer of O.P. No.2 refused to rectify the problem, saying that there was no problem in the said mobile set. The O.Ps. are, thus, deficient in providing services and they be directed either to replace the defective mobile set or to return the cost thereof alongwith interest and also to pay compensation for harassment and litigation expenses, as prayed for in the complaint.

 

8.                Sh. Tilak Raj, the authorized agent of O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 submitted that the mobile set which was brought by the complainant on 23.6.2014 to O.P. No.2 was duly checked free of cost, but no defect was found in it, however, after updation of the software, he was telephonically informed many times to collect the same, but he came only on 16.7.2014 and collected the same. In order to grab money from the O.Ps. illegally, he purposely, has given  wrong remarks in a vague manner, in the job card and has not specifically pin-pointed any particular defect in the said mobile set. Since the complainant has failed to prove any defect in the mobile set, the complaint filed by him being without any merit be dismissed with costs.

9.                Perusal of service job card dated 23.6.2014, Ex. C4, reveals that the complainant had approached the O.P. No.2 and delivered his mobile set for rectification of the problem as mentioned in it, but on 16.7.2014, after taking the delivery of the said mobile set from O.P. No.2 although he had given a note on the said job card to the effect that he was not satisfied with the service, yet he had not clarified as to in what manner he was not satisfied and the what defects as mentioned in the job card have not been rectified by the O.P. No. 2. Merely by putting a note on the job card that he was not satisfied with the job done by the O.P. No.2, it will not serve any purpose unless it is proved by leading cogent & convincing evidence that the mobile set still suffers from any defect, but the complainant has failed to do so. So far as the alleged delay of one month in delivery of the mobile set in question to the complainant, after its repair by the O.P. No.2, is concerned, no document has been placed on record by either of the parties to prove their respective stand, therefore, in the absence thereof, it is difficult to make out, who was responsible for the said delay. Facing with this situation, we are of the view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case against any of the O.Ps., consequently, the complaint is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

                    The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated: 20.02.2015                                                PRESIDENT

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                    MEMBER.  

�;�D��