Haryana

Ambala

CC/269/2020

Vidhi Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Nokia - Opp.Party(s)

Gian Garewal

03 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  269 of 2020.

                                                          Date of Institution           :  06.11.2020.

                                                          Date of decision    :  03.04.2023.

 

Vidhi Gupta aged 23 years Daughter of Shri Rajesh Gupta, Resident of House No.183-A, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt., District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

                                                    Versus

 

1. The Nokia, The Care Manager HMD Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. Ashoka Estate, Flat No.814, 8^th Floor 24, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.110001 (India) Support@HMDGlobal.Com.
2. Nokia Care Centre, 175, Bank Road, Anant Building, Rai Market, Above Bank of Baroda, Ambala Cantt.133001.
3. Sanjeev Communication, # 40, Preet Nagar, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt.

 

     ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Complainant in person

                   None for the OPs No.1 & 2.

                   OP No.3 already ex parte.

 

ORDER:     SHRI VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

1.                 Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.50,000/-, as compensation, damages for suffering, special and general damages, for causing harassment and mental tension, financial loss etc.  
2. To pay Rs.13,200/- cost of the mobile handset.
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.  
4. Expenses incurred Rs.3,000/-, by the complainant on every visit to OP No.2.
5. To pay Rs.15,500/-, the non earning complainant had to spend on new device during her poor financial condition.

                   OR

                   Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem               fit.

 

2.                Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased Nokia 7.1 handset on 21.02.2020, vide invoice No.GST 1152 from the OP No.3 for Rs.13,200/-. At the time of purchase, complainant was made fully assured by the OP No.3 that the device is working in proper order and is under warranty of one year and the company i.e OP No.1 will provide proper service in case of any default. To the surprise of the complainant, the assurance given to the complainant fell flat and within only one month of the purchase of the above said mobile phone, the handset became dead and stopped working. Because of the mobile which has sold to the complainant, she had to remain without any mobile phone for about 2 months and it was impossible during lock down period to get it repaired. After the Lock down, she contacted the OP No.3 to get the phone repaired and the OP No.3 further went to the OP No.2 for getting the mobile phone repaired. OP No.2 ill-treated the OP No.3 and also refused to issue the service job sheet to OP No.3 and kept the mobile phone for about one month. OP No.2 asked the complainant to collect the mobile phone on 18.06.2020 and after being without the mobile phone almost three months. Complainant collected the same. After two months, complainant who was in the terminal semester of Law Graduation, while taking online examination suffered a defect in mobile phone in between the continuation of the examination and no amount of compensation can cover the mental agony faced by the complainant during those hours of the examination. Complainant contacted the OP No.2 to get the device repaired and was ill treated and mentally harassed by the OP No.2, who refused to give the service without any valid reason and also clearly refused to replace the device. In the month of September 2020, the some more defects were found to be in the mobile phone and one day the phone got over heated, which could have exploded and could have resulting in any loss or injury to the complainant. Within a period of eight months from the purchase the complainant had experienced almost every defect that the mobile phone can ever have i.e a defective Camera, defective software, defective display, defective sim slot, defective battery and defective charging jet. Complainant has suffered a loss her studies and profession in the current scenario of online work during this pandemic just because of non availability of the device. Finally after a lot of harassment on 20.09.2020, the OP No.2 submitted the device and issued the service job sheet promising the target delivery date as 24.09.2020 and till date the complainant has not received any proper response from the OPs No.1 and 2 not making any efforts for the speedy service and with the malafide intention to harass the complainant. OP No.2 did not attend the complainant fairly and just left with excuses every time with the non availability of the spare parts. Complainant who is not an earning youth, had to buy a new mobile handset Oppo-A53, vide invoice No.GST-298 on 29.09.2020 as the complainant was left with no other option in these financial crises and in the error of online work all because of the deficiencies in service and the defected device sold to the complainant.  This way, the OPs have not only committed deficiency in service but are also indulged into unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.

3.                Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability etc. On merits, it is stated that Complainant be put to strict proof with respect to the defect in the handset which arose within one month from the date of the purchase of the handset. The complainant approached the ASC for the first time in the month of June 2020. It is humbly stated that the OPs No.1 and 2 is not privy to the alleged communications and/or transactions between the complainant and the OP No.3 and therefore cannot reply to any averments with respect to such communications and transactions. It is further stated that the complainant for the first time approached the ASC in June 2020 for repair of her handset. It is pertinent to submit that ASC could not accept any handset without issuance of the Job Sheet. The OPs No.1 and 2 had offered the swap handset to complainant even after repaired the handset of the complainant as he demanding the refund of the cost of the handset. The OPs No.1 and 2 vide its email dated 09.11.2020 informed the complainant to collect the swap handset from the OP No.2 but the complainant had not given any reply. The OPs No.1 and 2 send email on 10.11.2020 again requested the complainant to collect the handset but the complainant did not collect her handset from the OP No.2. The answering OPs send an email dated 16.11.2020 to complainant requested her to collect the swap handset and also reject the demand of the complainant for the refund of the cost of the handset as they have offered the solution strictly as per the manufacturer’s limited warranty terms and conditions. Complainant had approached the service centre twice for removal of the defects in the handset and each time the job sheet was prepared. It is clear from the content of the first job sheet issued by the service centre in the month of June 2020 the defect pointed out by the complainant was qua the defect in the charging port and as per the job sheet dated 20.09.2020, the defect was relating to the camera functioning. It is further stated that as per the terms of warranty, in case of a defect in any defect, the Ops No.1 and 2 follows a policy of replacing the product if the product is within the stipulated period of warranty. The complainant approached the service centre on 20.09.2020, for removal of the defect pertaining to the front camera not working properly. The service centre after repair of the handset called the complainant several time to collect the handset but the complainant did not approach the service centre for taking the delivery of the handset. The answering OP also send the email dated 09.11.2020 and 10.11.2020 requesting the complainant to collect the handset from the service centre but the complainant did not approach the service centre for collecting the handset. It is further stated that the defect occurred due to the mishandling of the handset by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 and 2 and prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed against them.

4.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.3 before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.03.2021.   

5.                Complainant tendered her affidavit as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence of the complainant. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the OPs No.1 and 2 failed to lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities, therefore, evidence of the OPs No.1 and 2 have been closed by the order of this Commission on 01.09.2022.

4.                On the date of arguments, none put in appearance on behalf of the OPs No.1 and 2, as such, this Commission heard the arguments put forth by the complainant and have also carefully gone through the case file.

5.                 Complainant reiterated the version as mentioned in the complaint and prayed for allowing the present complaint.

6.                Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased one mobile set of Nokia Company Model No.7.1 bearing IMEI No.356954092873296 from the OP No.3 for sum of Rs.13,200/- vide invoice No.GST-1152 dated 21.02.2020, (Annexure C-2). The complainant alleged that she was assured with one year warranty of the mobile in question.  From the very beginning, the above-said mobile was having manufacturing defect and the said handset became dead and stopped working properly.  The complainant approached the OP No.3 and narrated the whole problem to the OP No.3 and it assured the complainant to repair the said mobile set and asked the complainant to approach the OP No.2 but the OP No.2 failed to repair the same and asked the complainant that this is the manufacturing defect.  The complainant has also tendered in evidence copy of bill (Annexure C-2), copy of service job-sheet (Annexure C-3) and copy of legal notice (Annexure C-3).  So, we find that there was manufacturing defect in the said mobile. On the other hand, none has come forward to contest the complaint on behalf of OP No.3 as it was proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and unchallenged against the OP No.3 and thus, we have no other option, except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant, which is duly supported by her affidavit and other supporting documents. From the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is clearly established that the mobile in question got defective within warranty period and the OPs have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant, as such, OPs are deficient in providing the services to the complainant and are not only liable to repair/replace the mobile phone in question, being under warranty, but are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by complainant.

6.                 In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint against the OPs, jointly and severally and direct them in the following manner:-

                   (i) To refund the amount of Rs.13,200/- as the cost of mobile                     alongwith interest @ 4% per annum, from the date of filing of the            complaint, i.e 06.11.2020, till its realisation.

                   (ii) To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and                 physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

                   (iii) To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.  

          The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the OPs shall pay interest @ 6% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 03.04.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President