Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/328/2018

Vishal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nokia Service Centre - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

28 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                     =======

                                                                             

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/328/2018
Date of Institution	:	11/07/2018
Date of Decision	:	28/02/2019

 

Vishal S/o Sh. Sava Ram, R/o H.No.707/26, B.D.C. Sector 26, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.      Nokia Service Centre, SCO No.2473-2474, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Incharge.

 

2.      Pioneer Traders, SCO No. 1038, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Owner.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Nitin Kumar, Authorized Agent of Complainant.
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
	:	Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.

 

PER Dr.S.K.Sardana, Member

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are that the Complainant had purchased a new Nokia 5 mobile handset from Opposite Party No.2 for Rs.12,499/- vide invoice dated 31.10.2017, carrying a warranty of one year. Just after two months of its purchase, the said mobile handset started giving problems. Accordingly, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 umpteen number of times either to repair the handset or to replace the same with a new one, but all his requests fall flat. 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 Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 contested the Complaint and filed its reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainant approached the Customer Care of the Manufacturer and he was advised to visit the Service Centre, but he never visited the Service Centre. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Authorized Agent of Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 (Opposite Party No.2 being ex-parte).
7.         The Authorized Agent of Complainant argued that the mobile handset in question suffers from various defects right from the very beginning and all the requests of the Complainant to either repair or replace the handset proved to be futile. This fact has however been reputed by the Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 contending that the Complainant never visited the Service Centre. However, this contention of the Opposite Party No.1 does not find favour with this Forum for the reasons recorded hereinafter.
8.         The Complainant has placed on record the copies of e-mail correspondence to show that he raised his grievance with the Nokia Mobile Care and on its assistance, he even approached the Service Centre on 14.08.2018, which is fortified from the Service Job-Sheet of even date placed on record by him. The Authorized Agent of the Complainant argued that the Service Centre did not repair the mobile phone properly, due to which the Complainant approached this Forum.      
9.         In the present case, in so far as the question of quality and standard of mobile handset is concerned, the same having been manufactured by Nokia – a reputed company, it can safely be presumed that if not better, the quality and standard of handset manufactured by above company would be at least at par with the quality and standard of other manufacturers of similar product.
10.         Now, the question arises as to whether the Complainant has proved on record that there exists defects in the mobile handset purchased. The documentary evidence, brought on record by the Complainant to prove that the handset was defective, is adequate to substantiate that the handset was defective and speaks volumes about the quality and standard of the handset manufactured by the above company.
11.         Undisputedly, the handset in question was purchased by the Complainant on 31.10.2017 and was brought to Opposite Party No.1 on 14.08.2018 with some concerns e.g. networking issue, during calling time handset is not properly working, hanging issues etc.
12.         Importantly, the Opposite Party No.2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant, as also to support the stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1 and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.2 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.2 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & uncontroverted.
13.         The sequence of above leads to irresistible conclusion that the Opposite Parties are indulged into unfair trade practice and are guilty of rendering proper services to the Complainant, which in turn certainly has caused unprecedented physical and mental harassment to the Complainant and forced him to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation. 
14.         No doubt, the mobile handset was under warranty for a period of one year. However, once it is proved on record that there is defect, imperfection in the quality of product and there is a manufacturing defect, the warranty amounts to guarantee to replace the product/ refund the amount charged against the product sold. A consumer would not like to purchase headache as is happened in the present case. It is worthwhile to mention that as the handset was used by the Complainant for around ten months, therefore, we deem it appropriate to deduct 50% of the invoice amount towards depreciation.
15.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint, deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed.  The Opposite Parties are directed as under:-

1. To pay Rs.6,249.50/- (after deducting 50% of the invoice price towards depreciation) to the Complainant;

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

(iii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

16.         This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
17.         The Complainant shall return the defective mobile handset in question, to the Opposite Party No.2, after the compliance of the order.
18.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
28/02/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President