Order No.  7  dt.  23/09/2019

                Case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a Nokia mobile hand set being no. B077PWJP92 on 18/05/2018 by paying Rs.18,999/- through online purchase. Subsequently o.p. issued a one year warranty for the said mobile set. It is stated in the petition of complaint that the mobile set of the complainant persisted network and charging problem and after 4 months from the purchasing it started malfunctioning. Thereafter the complainant informed the said fact to the o.p. no.1 after examining the same o.p. no.1 stated that there was some problem in the motherboard of the mobile set after repairing o.p. no.1 handed over the mobile set to the complainant. It is further stated that after few days same problem started again and the complainant deposited his mobile set to the o.p. no.1 and requested him to replace the mobile set but o.p. no.1 stated him that the replacement period of the mobile set was already over. On 16/02/2019 the complainant sent a letter to the o.p. no.2, the seller, requesting him to  replace his mobile set but to no effect till date. O.p. no.3 sending a letter dated 11/04/2019  stated that o.p. no.2 is solely responsible for marketing, selling and supporting Nokia branded phones. Therefore, the complainant on several occasions requested the o.ps to replace his mobile set but o.ps did not turn up. Finding no alternatives the complainant files this case praying for direction upon the o.ps to replace the mobile set in question or refund the price of the mobile set along with compensation and litigation cost.

Notices were duly served upon the o.ps. In spite of service of notice none appears on behalf of them. Hence the case was proceeded ex parte against them.

Decision with reasons:

Evidently the complainant purchased a Nokia mobile set by paying Rs.18,999/- to the o.p. no.2 on 18/05/2018. Complainant filed some documents to prove the averment of his contention from where it appears that on 03/09/2018 complainant had been at the service centre of o.p. for repairing his mobile set and the job sheet of o.p. no.1 proves that the mobile set persisted problems and the remark portion of the said job sheet supports the contention of the complainant “Network auto goes of, blue tooth and WIFI AUTO DISCONNECT DATA WILL BE DELETED”,  and the mobile set was under warranty on that date. Further it appears that on 06/12/2018 the complainant deposited the said mobile set to the o.p. no.1 for repairing the same which proves that the problems were sustaining within it. The letter dated 08/04/2019 proves the averment of the contention of the complainant that he informed the o.ps about the defect of his mobile set and requested them to replace the same within the warranty period. Therefore, from the unchallenged evidence of complainant, we are of opinion that the complainant has fully corroborated with the and he is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

                                                Ordered

that the Complaint Case No. CC/152/2019 is allowed ex parte against o.p. no. 3 with cost and dismissed ex parte against o.p. nos.1 & 2 without cost.

O.p. no. 3 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.18,999/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine) only  to the complainant  as well as pay compensation of  Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only for litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d., an interest @8%p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.