DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 9th day of January, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
Date of Filing: 06.06.2022
CC/102/2022
M.Chandrika
Ashraya
No.9 Sastha Nagar, Pudussery
Palakkkad – 678 632 - Complainant
(Party-in-person)
V/s
1. The Managing Director
Nokia India Private Limited, Flat No. 113
12th Floor Kailash Building 26
Kasturba Gandhi Marg
Central Delhi, Delhi - 110 001
2. The Managing Director
MyG, Carion Vertu Building
Mini Bypass Road, Puthiyara
Kozhilode – 673 004
3. The Proprietor
MyG, Town Bus Stand Road
Palakkad - 678 014
(All opposite parties ex-parte) - Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Smt. Vidya.A, Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant purchased a Nokia phone G10 from MyG Palakkad (3rd opposite party’s shop) on 01/01/2022. The phone had the problem of frequent call drop issues from the beginning. She made several complaints to MyG shop and Nokia Centre in Palakkad through phone and e-mails; but of no use.
The mobile was re-set several times by Nokia Centre on the request from MyG Head Office; but it did not work. As per their suggestion, she changed the network from BSNL to Jio. Even after that, sometimes incoming calls are not getting connected but the complainant is getting notification from Jio about the missed call number etc.
Because of the defective phone, the complainant who is aged 74 years having serious health issues could not contact the doctor in emergency time. Further, the problems in the phone affected her profession as medical transcriptionist. As she could not properly respond to the employer in time, many of her work files were shifted to others causing financial loss to her. When her relatives try to contact her, they are not getting calls because of the issues in the phone.
The complainant sent a letter to MyG shop to refund the amount, but there was no response from them. So this complaint is filed to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs. 13,000/- being the cost of the phone, Rs. 10,000/- as travel expenses and compensation for time loss, Rs. 2,00,000/- for the mental agony suffered because of deficient service, Rs. 2,00,000/- for work loss and Rs. 50,000/- as court expenses (Total amount claimed is Rs. 4,73,000/-).
2. Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties received notice; but they did not appear before the Commission and were set ex-parte.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked in evidence. Evidence closed. Heard the complainant.
4. The main points arising for consideration is this case are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Weather the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
- Reliefs as cost and compensation.
5. Point: 1
Ext.A1, copy of Tax Invoice issued by MyG shows the purchase NOKIA G10 phone on 01/01/2022 for an amount of Rs. 13,000/-
Complainant’s grievance is that when she tries to make call, most of the calls were repeatedly getting disconnected. Because of the call drop issue, the complainant who is 74 years old could not contact doctors when she is in urgent need. Further it affected her profession as Medical transcriptionist. Many of her work files were shifted to others because of non responding to the employer in time.
The complainant produced failed incoming call history screenshot which is marked as Ext.A2. It shows several missed calls. From the call history, it is seen that many incoming and outgoing calls lasts for few seconds.
The complainant further contends that she contacted the opposite parties through phone and E-mails to resolve the issue and followed their instruction for re-setting. She entrusted the phone to NOKIA Centre to reset and it was reset several times. More over as per their instructions, she changed the network from BSNL to Jio; but of no use. (Ext.A3 is the E-mails sent to NOKIA and MyG. Ext.A4 shows call details of G2 Technology and Ext.A5 is the complaint made to MyG Head Office Calicut).
5. So from the evidence adduced, it is clear that the complainant had made out a prima facie case. The complainant’s phone is having call drop issue and even after her repeated requests, the opposite parties did not do anything to resolve the issue. It is a clear deficiency in service on their part.
6. Even after the receipt of notice, the opposite parties did not appear before the Commission. So the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.
7. Points 2 & 3
As per the findings in Point No: 1, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and they are liable to compensate the complainant for that. The complainant, an aged lady had suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the defective phone. The inaction on the part of the opposite parties had dragged her into litigation causing further inconvenience and time loss. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for that.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund Rs. 13,000/- being the cost of the phone. Rs. 10,000/- for the deficiency in service and for the mental agony suffered on account of that and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the litigation.
Once the order is complied, the complainant is directed to return the phone to the 3rd opposite party.
The opposite parties shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 09th day of January, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant
Ext. A1 - Copy of Tax Invoice issued by 3rd opposite party dated 01/01/2022
Ext. A2 - Failed incoming call history screenshot
Ext. A3 - E-mails sent to NOKIA and MyG
Ext. A4 - Call details of G2 Technology
Ext. A5 - Complaint made to MyG Head Office Calicut
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: NIL
Witness examined from the complainant’s side: NIL
Witness examined from the opposite parties side: NIL
Cost- Rs. 5,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
