In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.154 / 2012.
1) Ms. Akriti Jain,
18/50, Dover Lane,
P.S. Gariahat, Kolkata-29. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Nokia Pvt. Ltd.
Regd. office at Sp Infocity, Industrial Plot no.243,
Udyog Vihar Phase-I, Durdanara,
Gurgaon, Haryana-122016.
2) Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.
East Regional office at DN-62, 3rd Floor,
Tower-B, MilleniumCity, Sector-5, SaltLake,
P.S. Bidhannagar, Kolkata-91.
3) Expression Novelties (P) Ltd.
18, Sarat Bose Road,
P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-20. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 11 Dated 30-05-2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant had purchased a Nokia mobile phone model no.E5, bearing ESN.IME no.354859040716640 on 4.1.11 at a cost of Rs.10,300/- from o.p. no.3, an authorized dealer for Nokia brand. Complainant states that she purchased a Nokia phone as Nokia is said to be a reputed international brand.
Complainant left the country on 5.1.11 and carried the said mobile handset with her. Complainant after about 3 months of use of the said handset suddenly noticed that was automatically getting switched off and problem seemed to persist.
Complainant immediately upon her return to Kolkata on or about 3rd week of June, 2011 and well within the period of warranty within 6 months from date of purchase went to shop being o.p. no.3 on 30.6.11 and informed them about the defect. Complainant was told by the representative of o.p. no.3 that the phone would be tested for malfunction and the same would be informed within 2 or 3 working days. On getting such assurance complainant deposited the said phone with o.p. no.3 and a job sheet was issued. However, in spite of repeated calls, o.p. no.l3 refused to provide any information to the complainant even after a month.
On going to the shop on 17.8.11 complainant was asked to come the next day i.e. 18.8.11. On going the next day i.e. 18.8.11 complainant was shocked to learn from o.p. no.3 that the said mobile phone could not be repaired at all and the handset was returned to the complainant without any repair in spite of keeping the said mobile phone for one and a half months.
Complainant states that she registered an online complaint with o.p. no.1 on 23.8.11 which it acknowledged and provided an identification no. ID-1-11814779642. However, no action has been taken by o.p. no.1 till date.
Complainant on getting no substantial responses from the online complaint from o.p. no.1 was constrained to write letters to the regd. office of o.p. no.1 and o.p. no.2 on 21.9.11 and the same were sent by regd. post with acknowledgement due card. Though o.p. no.1 received the said letter it has not taken any action in the matter. O.p. no.2 refused to accept the letter of the complainant.
Complainant states that it is apparent that o.p. no.1 has manufactured a defective handset and that the same was sold to the complainant by o.p. no.3. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. no.3 had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.p. no.3 in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. O.p. nos.1 and 2 did not contest the case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against o.p. nos.1 and 2.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant had purchased a Nokia mobile phone model no.E5, bearing ESN.IME no.354859040716640 on 4.1.11 at a cost of Rs.10,300/- from o.p. no.3, an authorized dealer for Nokia brand. Complainant states that she purchased a Nokia phone as Nokia is said to be a reputed international brand.
We further find from the record that complainant left the country on 5.1.11 and carried the said mobile handset with her. Complainant after about 3 months of use of the said handset suddenly noticed that was automatically getting switched off and problem seemed to persist.
It transpires that complainant immediately upon her return to Kolkata on or about 3rd week of June, 2011 and well within the period of warranty within 6 months from date of purchase went to shop being o.p. no.3 on 30.6.11 and informed them about the defect. Complainant was told by the representative of o.p. no.3 that the phone would be tested for malfunction and the same would be informed within 2 or 3 working days. On getting such assurance complainant deposited the said phone with o.p. no.3 and a job sheet was issued. However, in spite of repeated calls, o.p. no.l3 refused to provide any information to the complainant even after a month.
It is seen from the record that on going to the shop on 17.8.11 complainant was asked to come the next day i.e. 18.8.11. On going the next day i.e. 18.8.11 complainant was shocked to learn from o.p. no.3 that the said mobile phone could not be repaired at all and the handset was returned to the complainant without any repair in spite of keeping the said mobile phone for one and a half months.
Further case of the complainant is that she registered an online complaint with o.p. no.1 on 23.8.11 which it acknowledged and provided an identification no. ID-1-11814779642. However, no action has been taken by o.p. no.1 till date.
It is also seen that complainant on getting no substantial responses from the online complaint from o.p. no.1 was constrained to write letters to the regd. office of o.p. no.1 and o.p. no.2 on 21.9.11 and the same were sent by regd. post with acknowledgement due card. Though o.p. no.1 received the said letter it has not taken any action in the matter. O.p. no.2 refused to accept the letter of the complainant.
And it is apparent that o.p. no.1 has manufactured a defective handset and that the same was sold to the complainant by o.p. no.3.
In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that o.p. nos.1 and 2 had sufficient deficiency in service being service providers to their consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed ex parte with cost against the o.p. nos.1 and 2 and on contest without cost against o.p. no.3. O.p. nos.1 and 2 are jointly and/or severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.10,300/- (Rupees ten thousand three hundred) only to the complainant towards cost of mobile phone Model no.E5, IMEI no.354859040716640 and are further directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.8000/- (Rupees eight thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Complainant is directed to refund the mobile set in question, if lying with her, after compliance of the aforesaid order within 15 days.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
