IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PURI
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.12/2015
Present:: Sri D.Moharana ,President Incharge
Miss S.K.Rath,Member(W)
Mrs. Santilata Sahani W/o. Hemanta Kumar Sahani,
At- VIP Road, In front of Lee Garden, At/PO-Puri. ...Complainant
Vrs.
1- The Managing Director, Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.
At-RMZ Millenia Business Park,Campus-5,
2nd Floor No.143, MGR Road, North Chennai, Tamilnadu
2- Proprietor, CELL dot. Com
Infront of Mausima Temple,Grand Road, Puri.
3- Proprietor, Nokia Care, Shivam Associates,
Balagandi Square, Grand Road, At/PO/Dist-Puri.
For the Complainant- Sri Deepak Kumar Das,Advocate & Associates
For the Opposite Party- None
DATE OF FILING- 29.01.2015
DATE OF DISPOSAL-12.02.2020
O R D E R
Ms. S.K.Rath, Member(W)
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant had purchased a mobile handset bearing No. NOKIA 114, IMEI No. 358961051357045 from the Opposite Party No.2 on payment of Rs.2750/- on 21.12.2013. After using the mobile for about 4 months, there was certain unusual problems like auto switch off, one sided hearing problem, display problem, etc. were found to which he handed over it to Opp. Party No.3, the authorized service center. The O.P No.3 after repair of the mobile handed over to him, but the problems in the mobile were not rectified. Again on 27.11.2014, he handed over the mobile to O.P No.3 for repairing who after keeping the same for about 3 days returned back without rectifying the mobile stating that the mobile was having manufacturing defect which can not be rectified. Hence, this case before this Forum with a prayer for a direction to rectify the defect or to refund back the price of the mobile with compensation of Rs.10,000/- for harassment.
2- The opposite parties remained ex-parte even after receipt of notices of the Forum and did not file their written version despite several opportunities. Hence, the opposite parties were set ex-parte vide order dated 10. 8. 2017.
3- We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant on the date fixed for hearing and perused the documents filed on record. The Retail Invoice dated 21.12.2013 of Cell dot Com, Grand Road, Puri confirms regarding purchase of Nokia Phone of model No.114 having IMEI No. 358961051357045 against its cost of Rs.2750/- from Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Cell dot Com, Grand Road, Puri. While perusing the warranty of the above set as filed a copy of the same by the complainant, it reveals that there is 12 months warranty of the above set from the date of purchase. Admittedly, the mobile set was purchased on 21.12.2013 and the warranty was in force till 21.12.2014. The Job Sheet of Nokia Care, Grand Road, Puri- Opposite Party No.3 of dated 27.11.2014 signifies that the defects were perceived during the period of warranty in force. It is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the defects were not rectified due to manufacturing defect of the above mobile set. Therefore, when the mobile was not rectified, he approached to O.P No.1 and 2 for refund of the price, but nobody were concerned about his problem for which he took the shelter of this Forum.
4- From the above admitted facts of the complainant, we are satisfied that the problems in the mobile is still persisted which has not been attended by the Opposite Parties. The complainant has suffered in both financially and mentally due to not using the mobile set up to his satisfaction and all his hopes and aspiration of purchasing the mobile of such a reputed brand has been marred. Under this circumstances, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for repairing of the mobile set within the warranty period with the best sanctification of the complainant. But in the instant case, being an year old case and the matter relates to the year 2014, at this stage, repairing of the mobile set will not give proper justice to the complainant and, therefore, refund of the price of the mobile hand set would justify the grievance of the complainant. Hence, it is ordered that:
5- In view of the above and considered to the facts of the case, we allow the case of the complainant ex-parte against the opposite parties. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.2750/- to the complainant towards the cost of the mobile hand set and take back the defective mobile hand set from the complainant. In this peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to award any compensation as claimed by the complainant. However, the opposite parties are to pay Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant . This order shall be complied by the O.Ps within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Dictated and corrected by me on this 13th day of February,2020.
Sd/-D. Moharana Sd/-S.K.Rath
I AGREE( PRESIDENT I/C) MEMBER(W)
