Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/648/2019

Ritika Aneja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nokia Networks India - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

02 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	648/2019
Date of Institution	:	17.07.2019
Date of Decision	:	02.12.2019

 

                                       

                       

 

Ritika Aneja d/o Ashok Kumar Aneja r/o # 222/11, Purana Bazar Sunder Nagar, District Mandi (H.P.).

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Nokia Networks India Corporate, Office 7^th Floor, Building 9-A, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana, India through its Managing Director.

 

2.     Nokia Customer Care, 2473, 2^nd Floor, Dakshin Marg, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:

SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:-

                Complainant in person.

                OP No.1 exparte.

                Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for OP No.2.

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she purchased a mobile phone make Nokia 6.1 plus through the official website of Nokia on 27.09.2018 by paying the payment through credit card, having warranty of one year.  She had an issue with the mobile phone and therefore, she approached the Service Center to identify the defects and get it repaired who identified the problem with charging cable but the same did not get charged with a new one also then they asked to leave it for 10-15 days but she was ready to submit the mobile phone for a week and not for 10-15 days.  It has further been averred that she visited the Service Center 5-6 times and requested to provide the job sheet or ticket number but they refused to give and instead delayed the matter. It has further been averred that the reason of all this told by them was that the charging jack was not working properly and they replaced it with a new one.  After a few days again the mobile handset had problems such as its battery get drained within 10 minutes or so and the touch was not working then she again visited another Nokia Customer Care Service Center and they told her to submit the mobile phone for a week for repairs.     Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written statement, OP No.2 has pleaded that it is only an Authorized Service Center and has to provide the services to the customers as per the warranty policy of the Company.  It has further been pleaded that it used to provide the under warranty services free of costs to the customers and out of warranty services with costs as per warranty terms and conditions of the Company.  It has further been pleaded that OP No.2 could at the most facilitate the repairs of the mobile free of costs or replacement of the mobile phone with a brand new one but she had rejected the said offer on the last date of hearing. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         Despite due service through registered post, the OP No.1 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated  05.09.2019
4.         We have heard the complainant in person, learned Counsel for OP No.2 and have gone through the documents on record.
5.           The complainant in her complaint has alleged that the OPs have failed to rectify the defects in the mobile phone despite her repeated requests/visits. On the other hand, in its written statement, OP No.2 has showed its willingness and readiness to replace the mobile phone in question with a new one. However, the complainant has refused to accept the replacement of the mobile phone in question.
6.         We, thus, deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case that no useful purpose would be served by directing the OPs to replace the product in question beucase the mobile started giving problem soon after its purchase and as such the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product. If the replaced product develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because she had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous for her. 
7.         In view of the above, we allow the complaint with a direction to the OPs to refund Rs.15,999/- i.e. the price of the mobile phone in question to the complainant with a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/-. This order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on the awarded amounts from the date of this order till its realization.
8.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

02/12/2019                                                            sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER