Ld Advocate for the complainant is present. Judgement is ready and delivered in open Commission.

BY -SRI.SAURAV CHANDRA, MEMBER

1. Brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that the Opposite PartyNo.1 is an Authorized Service Centre of NOKIA and Opposite PartyNo.2 is aMobile & Electronics Shop from whom the Complainantpurchased a NOKIA Branded Mobile Handset (Model # NOKIA 8 SIROCCO BK TA1005SS, IEMI # 358535080052924) on 17.07.2018 at a consideration of Rs.49,999.00, vide Tax Invoice # 97, dated: 17.07.2018 with One Year Warranty by the Manufacturer.
2. Unfortunatelyafter few days all on a sudden within the warranty period, the said Mobile Handset Display became automatically black and dead although it is not suffered any physical or mechanical damage at any point of time for which the Complainant went to the Op No.2 who after checking the issue vividly and after failure to restart the mobile advised the Complainant to visit the Op No.1 being an Authorized Service Centre of NOKIA Mobile Handset.
3. Accordingly on 09.07.2019, the Complainant visited the Op No.1 and handover the Mobile Handset against a Job Sheet where Rs.19,589.92 was demanded towards an estimated cost for “DisplayMechanically Broken” and “Set LED Broken”whereas since date of purchase the phone was used with utmost care and protection and never suffered any sort of mechanical or physical damage. Even not even a single scratch either in display or in any part of the phone. The Complainant several times tried to convince the Op No.2 but, all in vain.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Gross Negligence and Deficiency in Service, the Complainant filed the instant case before this Commission.
5. The cause of action of this case arose on and from 09.07.2019 when the Op No.2 illegally demanded Rs.19,589.92 within the Warranty Period and thus the instant Complaint was filed within the prescribed period in terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The Complainant, therefore, prays for:-

1. To direct the Ops to refund the whole consideration money of Rs.49,999.00 against the said Mobile Handset to the Complainant.

2. To pay Compensation of Rs.20,000.00 to the Complainant by the Ops for negligence and deficiency in service and enormous delay.

3. To pay Litigation Cost of Rs.10,000.00 to the Complainant for conducting the case.

4. Any other reliefs

6. Notices were duly served upon all the Ops but, Ops have preferred to see the case be decided ex-parte against them.

7. Under the above circumstances, the Complainant has prayed for ex-parte order against the Ops.

8. Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

9. Decision with reasons

1. Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.

2. We have carefully perused the Affidavit of the Complainant, Service Job Sheet, Tax Invoice, Photographs alongwith all other submitted documents. We have also physically verified the mobile handset during hearing.

3. Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that complainant is a consumer having grievances against the Ops, as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

4. Op No.1 is an Authorized Service Centre of the Nokia which is a Manufacturing Company of Mobile Handset.It appears that since July’2029 i.e. within the warranty period, the Complainant has an issue with the ‘Display Black’ of said Mobile Handset which the Service Provider i.e. Op No.1 acknowledged on 09.07.2019with remarks - “SET LCD BROKEN” and Major Symptom – “Display Mechanically Broken” by determining an approximate estimated cost /chargeofRs.19,589.92 to repair.

5. The mobile in question which was materially produced before this open Commission it appears at a glance, the said handset is not only suffering from ‘Display Black’ but alsoan internal liquid damage is detected in the Mobile Handset without any single scratch or damage either in the LED Screen or in the Mobile Handset which is nothing but a manufacturing or mechanically defect without any breaking.Therefore, the observation is made in the Service Job Sheet under Problem Details column are not true even. Therefore, the warranty period should cover this mechanical fault as noted above by this Commission which caused damage withoutany external interference or influence.The consumer has not violated/breached any of the terms and conditions. So, this genuine handset should be repaired “free of charges” by the manufacturer or its’ authorized Service Centre i.e. Op No.1.The Op No.1 being a service provider of the product manufacturer has failed to either repair or to replace the product or to inform the product manufacturer instead it harassed the Complainantby raising or determining the estimated cost of Rs.19,589.92 (approx.) on its own within the Warranty Period without any basis or cogent reason which compelled the Complainantto suffer mental pain and agony.

6. Moreover, the Op No.1has not come to file any petition towardsproper analysis or test report by the Complainantfrom the appropriate laboratory with a direction to determine whether the said Mobile Display is mechanically broken or not.

7. The Op No.1 being an authorized Service Centre of Nokia Mobile Manufacturer, has the duty to provide service for and on behalf to the manufacturer and is responsiblefor each and every act on behalf of the manufacturer.In both the cases the Op No.1 fails to serve the consumer. The Op No.2being a trading shop for Mobile & Electronic items, is not at all liable for manufacturing defect, which is also clearly mentioned underDeclaration Point No.2 &4 of Tax Invoice. Although the Op No.2tried it’s best to restart the phone by entertaining the Complainant.

8. Therefore, from the unchallenged evidence of Complainantit clearly transpires that there are elements of Gross Negligence and Deficiency in Serviceby the Op No.1.

1. Now, coming to the matterof reliefs. TheOp No.1can’t get absolved from the mischief of negligence, harassment and deficiency in service. So,we think it would just and proper if we directthe Op No.1torepair thesaid handset completely and in total running condition without charging any cost/charge/amount;However, the Op No.1 will have to pay Compensationof Rs.5,000.00 and Rs.5,000.00 as Litigation Coststo the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order in default the Op No.1will have to paySimple Interest @ 8% per annumin addition to the said amount for non-compliance from the date of this order.

10. Accordingly,both the points are decided in favour of the Complainant.

11.  Thus, the complaint case succeeds.

Hence, it is

        O R D E R E D

That the CC-550 of 2019be and the same is allowedex-parte againstOp No.1 and dismissed exparte against the Op No.2.

1. The OpNo.1isdirected to repair thehandset completely and in total running condition without charging any cost/charge/amount; In addition to that, it will pay Rs.5,000.00 as Compensation and Rs.5,000.00 as towards Litigation Costs to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order in default the Op No.1will have to paySimple Interest @ 8% per annum in addition to the said amount for non-compliance from the date of this order till actual payment.

2. The Complainant would be at liberty to put the order into execution u/s 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and to initiate a proceeding u/s 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

3. Let a copy of this judgment be provided to the parties free of cost. The judgment be uploaded forthwith in the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

4. File be consigned to record section along with a copy of this judgment.