Haryana

Panchkula

CC/28/2019

JATIN KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NOKIA NETWORKS INDIA. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

16 May 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	28 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	04.01.2019
Date of Decision	:	16.05.2019

 

Jatin Kumar aged 25 years son of Sh. Ashok Kumar, resident of House No.C-7, HMT, Colony, Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula.

                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1. Nokia Networks India, Corporate Office 7^th Floor, Building 9=A, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase III, Gurgaon-122002.
2. Himalaya Photo Store, through its Proprietor Authorized Signatory, SCO No.1032-33, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.
3. M/s Aikon Technologies, (Authorized Service Centre of Nokia), through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory/Director SCO No.38, First Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula.
4. Anil Gupta, Manager M/s Aikon Technologies, (Authorized Service Centre of Nokio), SCO No.38, First Floor,  Sector 11, Panchkula.

 

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

For the Parties:   Complainant in person. 

                        OPs already ex-parte vide order dated 21.02.2019.

                       

 

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.     The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that on the assurance of OP No.2, the complainant purchased a mobile phone make Nokia 7 Plus from the OP No.2 for a considerable amount of Rs.25,000/- vide bill No.1694 on 19.06.2018. But at the very first day, when the complainant switched on the said phone the screen of the mobile phone was shivering and display was not even clear and within seconds the phone got heated. The speaker of phone automatically turned on, touch was not working properly. The complainant reported the matter to the OP No.2, who advised the complainant that the said mobile phone after charging would run smoothly and as per the assurance of OP No.2, the complainant charged the said phone but the said problems were not removed. Thereafter, the complainant further tried to check the features of the mobile phone i.e. camera, the screen automatically turned black and even there were no signals, the complainant was not even to make or receive calls. The vibrator of the phone was not working and the display was shivering and not working as it would be. Hands free was also not working and the voice used to come from speakers. Thereafter, the complainant on the very next day reported the matter to OP No.2 but he did not entertain the complainant and one of the employees of the OP No.2 advised the complainant to go to OP No.3. Complainant approached the OP No.3, where the OP No.4 (Manager) over there attended the complainant, who told the complainant that firstly he would install the software and problem would be rectified. Accordingly, the complainant handed over the mobile phone and after one day the OPs No.3 and 4 handed over the phone to the complainant and told the complainant that the problem has been rectified. But the complainant shocked and surprised to see that the said problems were still there. Thereafter, the complainant again approached OP No.3 and 4 and complained them, but they did not pay any heed and told the complainant that new software is going to launch after 10 days and that they will install new software after 10 days and problems will go. Again after the assurance the complainant again approached the OPs No.3 and 4 and requested them to rectify the problem. The OP No.3 and 4 again tried to put off the matter on one pretext or the other and passed the 14 days period of replacement of the manufacturing defect of the mobile phone. The above said problems were still existing in the mobile phone and then the OPs No.3 and 4 prepared number of job sheets (dated 13.07.2018, 23.07.2018, 26.07.2018, 05.09.2018) and took the mobile phone of the complainant for some time for 7 days and sometimes for 10 days. The OPs No.3 and 4 handed over the mobile phone to the complainant but the said problems still existed in the mobile phone. The complainant again approached the OPs No.3 and 4 who told the complainant that they would replace/swap the said mobile phone for that the mobile phone would be sent to OP No.1 and it would take 15 days and for that the complainant have to pay Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly the complainant handed over the mobile phone and Rs.5,000/- to OP No.4 to send the same to OP No.1. Again to the utter surprise of the complainant when the complainant approached the OP No.3 after 15 days the said OPs again tried to put off on one pretext to the other. The complainant went to the OPs No.3 and 4 for more than 15 times and lastly after a period of 1½ months the OP No.3 and 4 gave another mobile phone (which was not like new) was having another IMEI numbers. The said replaced mobile phone was also not in a good condition and screen was even blurred. The complainant only used the said mobile phone for 2-3 days and after 2-3 days more problems occurred than of the old mobile phone. The said replaced mobile phone is not even receiving or placing calls, camera is not working, hanging problems;this act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part; hence, this complaint.

2.     Notices were issued to the OPs No.1 to 4 through registered post (vide registered post No.CH025495276IN to OP No.1, registered post No.CH025495280IN to OP No.2, registered post No. CH025495293IN to OP No.3 and registered post No.CH025495302IN to OP No.4), which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OPs No.1 to 4; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of Ops No.1 to 4, they were proceeded ex-parte by this Forum vide its order dated 21.02.2019.

3.     To prove his case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-16 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.     We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file minutely and carefully.

        It is evident that the complainant purchased a mobile set, namely, Nokia 7 Plus 4/64 having IMEI No.353400090386959 for an amount of Rs.25,000/- vide bill No.1694 dated 19.06.2018 (Annexure C-1) from the OP No.2. It is also evident that the complainant faced the problems with regard to its functioning from its very beginning and for the rectification of the same contacted the OP No.3, who issued the job sheet dated 13.07.2018 (Annexure C-3), 23.07.2018 (Annexure C-4) and 26.07.2018 (Annexure C-5). A perusal of the job sheet dated 13.07.2018 reveals that the set had problem in its speaker, camera and touch working automatically. As per job sheet dated 23.07.2018 (Annexure C-4), 550 application did not start. From the perusal of job sheet dated 26.07.2018 (Annexure C-5) we find that the mobile set had problem with regard to its loudspeaker sound/Bluetooth, touch not working and display blank during camera operation. We also find a long conservation as contained in emails dated 16.07.2018 to 09.09.2018 (Annexure C-7) between the parties with regard to rectification of the defects in the said mobile set. We further find that the said mobile set was replaced by the OPs with IMEI No.353400090366902 as mentioned in Annexure C-1. However, the said replaced set also did not function properly and defects occurred in the same as is evident from job sheet dated 05.09.2018 (Annexure C-2). The above job sheet dated 05.09.2018 (Annexure C-2) contains the following details:-

“

SWAP Details
Model Name	NOKIA 7 PLUS-DS_BLACK_TA-1046_4/64GB	IMEI/Serial No.	353400090366902

 

Repair Details
Section	Symptoms	Faults	Service Code
05 AUDIO	4430 Audio, Loudspeaker does not work at all	447 Audio-Headset connector detection failure	CS CSUTOMER PHONE SWAP

                                                                                                             ”

From the perusal of email conversation held by the complainant with the OPs with regard to the rectification of the aforesaid set in question, we find that every time the OPs used to defer the matter by extending and revising the target delivery date. Vide email Annexure C-16, the OPs have revised the target date to 12.10.2018 but dill date grievances of the complainant have not been redressed.   

5.     During arguments the complainant reiterated the facts and version as contained in the complaint, affidavit Annexure CA and document Annexure C-1 to C-16 and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

6.     The OPs did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them. The non-appearance of the OPs despite notice shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

On the other hand, the version of the complainant is fully supported and corroborated by his affidavit Annexure CA, along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-16.  

7.     In view of the fact that the OPs neither responded to the notices nor have they opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the OPs had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as also the affidavit in support thereof. With regard to liability of the OP No.2 we may rely upon the order of Hon’ble State Commission, West Bangal in case titled as Printer Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kartick Chandra Das and others., 2017(3) CLT 411, wherein it has been held that the dealer is equally responsible along with manufacturer to supply the defect free goods to the consumers so that the later get proper value of their hard-earned money. Thus, we hold that all the OPs are liable jointly and severally for the deficient services rendered by them to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

8.     As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs:-

1. To refund an amount of 30,000/- (Rs.25,000/- the cost price of the said mobile set + Rs.5,000 cost of replacing/swapping) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization subject to the submission of  the mobile set in question by the complainant with the OPs.

 

2. The Ops shall pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

9.     The OPs shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPs failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.  

 

Announced

16.05.2019      Dr.Sushma Garg   Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal

                            Member              Member                              President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                         Satpal

                                         President