F I N A L   O R D E R

This is a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for direction upon O.Ps to replace the Nokia mobile set which the complainant purchased at Rs 3,250/- and to replace the same with a new one or to refund Rs 3,250/- and for compensation of Rs 10,000/- for harassment and deficiency in service

The case of the complainant in short is that he purchased the Nokia Mobile Set Model No.225 and IMEI No.356477066865700 and 356477066865718 from O.P. No.1. O.P.No.1 has a electronics goods shop at Bhupalpur, Itahar. O.P.No.2 is the Nokia Customer Care Centre having office at Siliguri More, Raiganj. After 2/3 days of purchase of the said Mobile set he found trouble arises in the said. The Key Pad Light is off and the mobile is getting hanged. On 20.09.15 he contacted O.P.No.1 and O.P. asked him to contact with O.P.No.2. Then on 23.09.15 he went to the O.P.No.2 and his mobile set was taken back by O.P. No.2 stating that it would be sent to the Company for repair and asked complainant to contact after one month. After one month complainant received the same but in the night he found the same problem. He again contacted O.P.No.1 and he asked him to wait for 20/25 days and again took the set from complainant on 24.11.15 for repair. Thereafter on 16.02.16 he collected the set from Nokia Care /O.P.No.2 but he found the same problem. Therefore being disappointed and having no relief from the O.Ps he preferred this petition before the Forum with the above prayer.

O.Ps. appeared and contested the case by filing written version, where they categorically denied the allegations of the complainant. O.Ps. made a very elaborate written statement and stated

that the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the process. That, the Key Pad Light of the mobile will not be shown every time.  When the Key Pad remains in locked position then the light will be shown only. That, some mobile sets software are manufactured in such a mode to save energy or charge of the battery. That, the Mobile set has no defect. Petitioner falsely claiming same to be replaced with a new one only for wrongful gain. If anything like “ hang “ of the said sis found it is due to rough handling  of the said by any unauthorized person whose help the complainant probably took to repair the set .Therefore, O.Ps pray for dismissal of this case with cost.

Petitioner to prove his case filed affidavit of examination in chief supported by documents like copy of cash memo showing purchase of the said at Rs 3,250/- on 16.01.2015, customer information slip dt. 23.09.15 with complain noted “Key Pad Light not on when call incoming”, the Service Job Sheet dt. 23.09.15, 24.11.15 with note thereon direction to check the said Mobile set and solve the problem.

                                              DECISION WITH REASONS

Petitioner has been examined as P.W.1. One Kalyan Mitra is examined as O.P.W. 1 on behalf of Company

Giving due consideration to the contents of the complaint petition, documentary evidence on record, hearing, argument advanced by the lawyers of both sides, the Forum has come to the findings as follows: -

Petitioner stated in the complaint petition and also deposed as P.W.-1 that he purchased the Nokia mobile set at Rs 3,250/-. The receipt of O.P.No.1 dt.16.01.15 proves the fact. The customer information slip dt. 23.09.15 that the set was handed over to O.P.No.2 through O.P.No.1 for repair is also proved. The problem in the hand set clearly noted that ‘Key Pad Light not on when call incoming”. The Nokia Care Service job sheet of O.P.No.2 dt. 23.09.15 also goes to show that the problem when call incoming key pad light not on, is mentioned. Therefore complainant has been able to prove that the mobile set developed some defects/problems in its use. Complainant again and again contacted the O.Ps to get the defect removed but he did not receive satisfactory service. At the time of hearing O.P tried to prove that the hand set is without any defect and it was the in build mechanism in the said that the key pad light will not show when receiving incoming call. However, no technical person in this regard deposes to prove this fact. On the other hand O.P tried to establish that there was some tampering of hand set by unauthorized person. The Nokia Case Service job sheet dt. 24.11.15 goes to show that such defect is ‘subject to technical verification for Liquid logged and tampering of hand set’ .Whether O.Ps have verified that there was tampering of hand set etc., there is no clear evidence in this regard from the side of the O.P. From scanning evidence on record of petitioner as well as O.P and after hearing argument advanced by the parties this Forum can safely conclude that the Nokia set from the very beginning developed some problems and Key Pad Light was not indicating. Complainant has been able to prove that he did not receive satisfactory service from the mobile hand se and he has been running from pillar to post to get the defects removed.  O.P.W.1 admits that defect in Key Pad Light on. O.P.W.2 even tried to denied these fact that petitioner ever approached to O.P. No.1 for repairing the said. So, from the evidence on record it is clear that this mobile set is not functioning properly to the satisfaction of the user. As the petitioner has been able to prove his case successfully, we find that he is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

Thus, we find there is a gross negligence on the part of the O.Ps   that they failed to give satisfactory service to the petitioner by removing the defect on his mobile set. We, therefore, find   deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. The complainant is entitled to get relief from O.Ps in the light of our above discussion.

Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the consumer complaint being No. CC-19/2016  be and the same succeeds on contest, but in part.

The O.P No.1 and O.P. No.2 are directed to /replace the Nokia Mobile set Model No.225 of the complainant with a new set, in alternative, to refund the petitioner Rs 3250/- the purchasing cost of the mobile set.  Further we direct the O.Ps to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation for harassment and mental pain and Rs. 500/- as litigation cost. Entire amount be paid within one month from this day, lest interest to be imposed at the rate of 9% per annum till full realization. Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.