HON’BLE SUDIP NIYOGI PRESIDENT FACTS On 03.03.2022, complainant had bought one Nokia C 30 handset from Shree Shyam Enterprise (opposite party No. 3) for Rs.11,000/-. The said product was covered under warranty. Subsequently, he found it stopped recognizing SIM, no call could either be received or made and the HOTSPOT was also not being recognized, and he took the handset to Nokia Care Centre i.e. opposite party No.1 on 15.07.2022. The service job sheet reveals that “Sim Slot Pin damaged so it is cover under OW”. On 18.07.2022, opposite party No.1 returned the said set with the comment in the delivery note dated 18.07.2022 “Sim slot is with Motherboard Cost approx. Rs.7,000/- but customer don’t want to do the repair.” Thereafter, he sent several e-mails to the opposite parties for repairing the set free of charges but he did not get any reply. Complainant also did not get any reply to his letter that he had sent on 09.09.2022. So, complainant filed this case before this Commission praying for an order for repair or replacement of the handset free of charges as mentioned in the warranty card and also for compensation of Rs.50,000/- against the opposite parties. In this case, opposite party No.2 entered appearance and filed written version but as opposite party Nos.1 & 3 did not appear, the instant case was heard against them ex parte. In their written version opposite party No.2 denied the allegations of the complainant and also claimed the complaint be dismissed as the allegations are baseless. Complainant filed his evidence on affidavit. But no evidence was filed on behalf of the opposite party No.2 despite getting opportunities. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) as prayed for? FINDINGS Here in this case, admittedly, complainant had bought the Nokia mobile set from opposite party No. 3 on 03/03/2022 at a price of Rs.11,000/- (Tax Invoice- Annexure- A). Also admitted it is that complainant produced the said mobile set to opposite party No. 1- authorized Nokia Care Centre on 15/07/2022. According to complainant, there were problems like, mobile set stopped recognizing sim, no phone call could be made or received and hotspot not being recognized. Opposite party No. 1 issued service job sheet on receipt of the mobile set showing problem in details where there were issues of low sound hotspot and the sim not recognized and the engineers of opposite party No. 1 found the sim slot pin damaged. So, according to them, it was covered under OW. Subsequently, opposite party No. 1 on 18/07/2022 issued one delivery note while handing over the said set to the complainant with comments that sim pin broken by customer and as the sim slot is with mother board, the said mother board needs to be replaced with cost approximately Rs.7,000/-. It was observed there that the customer did not want to do the repair and therefore, the job was cancelled. We find there were several email correspondences made by the complainant besides a letter of request to opposite party No. 2 for replacement of the damaged Nokia set. However, complainant did not get any reply as claimed by him. In their written version, opposite party No. 2 claimed that after having bought the said Nokia set, complainant had used the set for about more than 4 months without any fault or defect and subsequently, the defect as alleged by the complainant, might have occurred due to mis-handling of the handset by the complainant when the sim card inter section might have got damaged the slot holding. According to the opposite parties, the said defect as alleged was due to negligent handling of the handset by the complainant which is not covered under the warranty condition and therefore, they claimed that the repair could be done only against cost. They also alleged that the complainant desired for replacement of the set instead of repair work. In their written version, the opposite party No. 2 also claimed that under limited warranty period, the handset is repaired free of charges by them or their authorized service network provided- (i) the handset is a genuine handset of Nokia, (ii) it suffers from a defect or problem during the limited warranty period and the said defect is covered under the limited warranty i.e. the defect in material and workmanship and (iii) the consumer does not violate/breach any of the terms and conditions as stated in the limited warranty document. Further, according to opposite party, when a handset becomes non-functional due to the defect covered under the limited warranty which occurs during the validity of warranty period and such defect is beyond repair, only then the defective part is replaced or handset is replaced by another handset of the same model to avoid any kind of inconvenience or loss to the customer and replacement under limited warranty terms is limited only to those cases where repair is not possible or there was a genuine problem exists after repeated repairs during warranty period. Here we find there is no dispute as to the genuineness of the handset which is a Nokia made one bought by the complainant and there were also some defects/problems in using the said set following which the complainant had to rush to opposite party No. 1-the care centre and it is also admitted by opposite party No. 2 that the said handset was within the warranty period. Now, what we find there is no material on record from the side of the opposite parties that the complainant violated or breached any of the terms and conditions as stated in the warranty document. The contention of opposite party No. 2 that the fault in the handset was due to the negligent handling by the complainant is also without any sufficient proof. This apart, opposite party No. 2 as we find is also found to be doubtful of the said alleged act of negligent handling and that is why, they stated in their written version that the defect might have occurred due to mishandling by the complainant. In his petition of complaint, we find the complainant prayed, inter alia, for an order to repair or replace the handset free of charges as mentioned in the warranty card. So, complainant is found to be agreeable for an order to repair the handset free of charges, if possible, instead of replacing the same. So, considering all the materials on record in the present facts and circumstances, we think an order should be made in favour of the complainant to repair the mobile set, in question, free of charges by the opposite parties but if the same is beyond repairable, to replace the same. Therefore, complainant is entitled to relief in this case. He is also entitled to Rs.2,000/- for cost of litigation. Accordingly, it is ORDERED That the instant complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the opposite party No. 2 and ex parte against opposite party Nos. 1 & 3. Opposite party No. 1 & 2 are directed to repair the Nokia mobile set bought by the complainant bearing model name- NOKIA C30 TA-1345 DS 4/64 GREEN IN, Product Code- 286642983 and IMEI/Serial No. 359153671497968 on production of the same by the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of this order. And if the set is found beyond repairable both the said OPs to replace the same. OR, alternatively To refund the price of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Only) of the mobile set along with interest @8% p.a. from the date of 18.07.2022 when the handset was returned without repairing. Both the opposite party No. 1 & 2 are also liable to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) for cost of litigation to the complainant within the aforesaid period. Both the opposite party No. 1 & 2 are jointly or severally liable to comply with this order within the stipulated period as mentioned above, failing which, the complainant shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Dictated and corrected by me President | 
