BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Consumer Complaint No. 27 of 2018.
Date of Institution: 15.02.2018.
Date of Decision: 19.12.2019.
Nikhil Kumar son of Sajjan Kumar resident of Rai Singh Ki Dhani Gali No.1, near Ghantaghar, Bhiwani-127021.
…..Complainant.
Versus
1. Tanun Ahuja, Ahuja enterprises shop No., bajrangbali colony, rohtak road, Bhiwani 127021.
2. Aakosh Manager Nokia Care, nath enterprises, Hansi Gate, Halwasiya mall, Ist Floor, Opp.K.M.School Bhiwani, 127021.
3. Manager, HMD Global India Pioneer, Urban Square Tower C, 5th Floor, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector 62, Gurgaon-122002 Haryana, India.
4. Manager, Nokia networks India Corporate Office, 7th Floor, Building 9A, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase III, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana, India.
…..Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Nagender Singh, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Shriniwas Khundia, Member.
Present: None for the complainant.
OPs No.1, 2 & 4 already exparte.
Sh.Rahul Kaushik, Advocate for OP No.3.
ORDER:-
NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile set Nokia 6, bearing IMEI No. 356029080484669 for Rs.14990/- from Simple Sale Solution on 27.12.2019. Since the phone of the complainant was not working properly, therefore, he got deposited the same with Nokia care centre on 05.01.2018 but the employees had mentioned the date as 05.01.2017 in the job card but assurance was given to the complainant that the new mobile would be given to him. Thereafter, new online job card No.394433527/180106/004 was issued to the complainant wherein the date has been mentioned as 06.01.2018. The mobile phone in question was creating problem such as auto off and heating and the same was not burnt at the time of inspection at Nokia Care Centre and the same was deposited with the Nokia Service Centre on 12.02.2019 due to manufacturing defect in the hand set, therefore, the complainant has purchased new mobile of Oppo Company. The officials of the Nokia Care Centre instead of redressing the grievance of the complainant have also misbehaved with the complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
2. On notice, opposite party No.3 appeared and filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that the mobile phone did not suffer from any manufacturing defect and the allegations leveled by the complainant are without any basis as no job sheet has been produced on the case file. The complainant has woven fabricated facts in the instant complaint as the alleged defects in the handset arose as a result of negligence and improper usage and handling on the part of the complainant himself. The complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention. It has been further submitted that if any handset has developed any defect which is covered under the limited warranty and such a defect is beyond repair, then in such a rare even, the defect part is replaced and or handset is replaced by another handset of the same model top avoid any kind of inconvenience or loss to the customer. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the replying opposite party is not privy to any guarantee, if any, given by the retailer apart from the terms and conditions attached to the handset. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. Opposite parties No.1,2 & 4 did not come present before this Forum, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.03.2018.
3. The complainant has tendered documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C4 in evidence whereas the opposite party No.3 has produced affidavit Ex.RW1/A on the case file.
4. Arguments advanced on behalf of opposite party No.3 heard and the case file has been perused carefully.
5. The complainant has purchased the handset in question on 27.12.2017 as is evident through Annexure C4. The complainant has come with the plea that there was manufacturing defect in the handset as it went auto off within a short period and the same was got deposited with service centre and in support of his plea he has placed on record job sheet Annexure C1 to Annexure C3. Per contra, the appearing opposite party has come with the plea that there was no manufacturing defect in the handset and the pleas raised by the complainant are without any basis and if there is any problem in the handset then the same is result of mishandling and improper usage of the same.
6. The contentions raised by the complainant have weighty as in the job sheets Annexure C1 to Annexure C3, one problem such as Handset dead has been mentioned. Though in job sheet Annexure C1, handset brunt has also been mentioned but it appears that the same has been written in order to avoid fill up the lacuna as the opposite party No.3 has not produced any evidence in support of the plea that the mobile handset was went dead due to mishandling or improper usage by the complainant and the same was even in burnt condition. The complainant had purchased the mobile in question on 27.12.2017 and it went out of order within a short span of 15 days and the opposite parties have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant as the mobile has neither been replaced nor the cost thereof was refunded to the complainant. It is worthwhile to mention here that it is misconceived notion that any goods can be ordered to be replaced or the cost can be ordered to be refunded only if they suffer from manufacturing defect. There is no such concept of goods suffering from manufacturing defect enshrined by the provision of Consumer Protection Act. Consumer Protection Act only defines the word ‘defect’ by way of Section 2 (1) (f) of the Act which is to the following effect:
“Defect means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.”
In the present case the complainant has been able to prove that there is defect in the mobile handset in question and due to this the same is lying with the service centre since February, 2018 and his grievance has not been redressed, therefore, the present complaint deserves acceptances against opposite parties No.3 & 4 Only. The complaint against opposite parties No.1 & 2 stands dismissed.
7. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances and the evidence brought on record by complainant, we allowed the complaint and the opposite parties No.3 & 4 are directed as under:-
i. To refund Rs.14490/- (cost of mobile) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint tills its realization.
ii. To pay Rs.4000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship and cost of litigation.
Compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: - 19.12.2019
(Shriniwas Khundia) (Nagender Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
