DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.53 of 15
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 13-02-2015
DATE OF ORDER: 31-03-2016
Shubham Goyal son of Shri Sushil Kumar, resident of 575/3, Lohari Wala Road Naya Bazar, Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Nokia Care, The Mobile Creaters, Halwasia Mall, near K.M. Public School, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani.
- The Manager, Nokia India Sales Private Limited, S.V. Infocity, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Plot No. 243, Udyog Vihar, Hondahera, Gurgaon.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present:- Complainant in person.
Sh. Rupesh Sharma, Advocate for Ops.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that on 16.12.2014 he had purchased one hand set of Nokia Lumia-630 for a sum of Rs. 7999/-. It is alleged that soon after purchase the Hand Set became defective within warranty period and complaint was lodged with the respondents. It is submitted that he visited OP no. 1 to get repair his mobile handset but the OP no. 1 refused to issue the job sheet and the complainant made the complaint to the higher authorities of the Nokia Company and then his mobile handset was received by the OP no. 1 for repairs on 19.01.2015 vide job sheet Annexure C-2. Hence the complainant was deprived of use of the Hand Set and suffered a loss. Now the complainant has claimed the new handset along with compensation and costs by way of filing present complaint.
2. Opposite parties on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. It is submitted that the mobile phone was deposited on 19.01.2015 to OP no. 1 with some defects and the same was resolved by OP no. 1. It is submitted that the complainant was duly informed by OP no. 1 telephonically and after his refusal a registered letter dated 29.10.2015 was sent to him. It is submitted that the complainant was adamant to take brand new set from the Ops and he threatened that he would certainly take it by hook or by crook. It is further submitted that the handset is properly repaired and is working properly brought by OP no. 1 in the Forum today itself. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence Annexure C-1 & Annexure C-2 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, Ops has placed on record Annexure R-1 & Annexure R2 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the complainant in person and counsel for the OPs.
6. The complainant reiterated the contents of his complaint. He submitted that he has visited OP no. 1 to get repair his mobile handset but the OP no. 1 refused to issue the job sheet and the complainant made the complaint to the higher authorities of the Nokia Company and then his mobile handset was received by the OP no. 1 for repairs on 19.01.2015 vide job sheet Annexure C-2.
7. The counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the mobile handset in question was deposited by the complainant on 19.01.2015 and the mobile handset was duly repaired by the OP no. 1, the intimation of which was sent to the complainant telephonically and by registered letter dated 29.01.2015. The complainant was adamant to take brand new handset from the Ops and he did not take the delivery of the mobile handset which is in working condition. The counsel for the Ops referred the affidavit dated 26.11.2015 of OP no. 1 wherein it has been mentioned that a group of some persons including Shubham, Sahil, Suraj, Mangal and Amit etc. after purchasing of the mobile handsets they are filing the case against the mobile companies. The counsel for the Ops submitted that the Manager of the OP has brought the mobile handset of the complainant which is absolutely in working condition, to deliver it to the complainant. The complainant refused to receive the mobile handset. At the request of both the parties their statement recorded separately.
8. The Manager, Parvat Ram of OP no. 1 stated that the mobile handset of the complainant is in working condition and he has brought the same to deliver it to the complainant. He stated that after the repair of the mobile handset in January 2015 and the intimation of the same was sent to the complainant vide registered letter dated 29.01.2015, before the filing of the present complaint. On the other side, the complainant stated that the letter dated 29.01.2015 was received by him but till then the papers for filing the complaint were ready hence he has not gone to OP no.1 to take the delivery of the handset. He has further stated that he does not want to take his mobile handset.
9. The assertions made by the OP no. 1 is in his affidavit dated 26.11.2015 seems to be correct because some complaints of the persons named in the affidavit, regarding the mobile handset have come before us. The complainant deposited his mobile handset in question with OP no. 1 on 19.01.2015 for repairs. As per the contention of OP no. 1 after the repair of the mobile handset of the complainant he intimated the complainant telephonically and also sent registered letter dated 29.01.2015. The receipt of the letter has also been admitted by the complainant in his statement recorded on 30.03.2016. The contention of the counsel for the Ops that the complainant was adamant to take brand new set from the Ops seems to be tenable because the complainant within 10 days from the deposit of his mobile handset, even after getting the information from the OP no. 1 to take the delivery of the mobile handset in working condition refused to take it. Taking into account each and every aspect of the case, we dispose of this complaint with the direction to OP no. 1 to deliver the mobile handset in question in working condition to the complainant as and when the complainant comes to it. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum
Dated:.31-03-2016. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi),
Member
