Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 395.
Instituted on : 24.08.2018.
Decided on : 03.06.2019.
Kuldeep (age 56 years) s/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan R/o H.No.637-C/30, Adarsh Nagar, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Vaishno Communication(Dealer Nokia Mobile Phone), Chhotu Ram Chowk, Civil Road, Rothak, Haryana through its Proprietor/Partner.
- Global Mobile Care(Authorized Nokia service Center), 84/17, HUDA Complex, Near Police Chowki, Shantmai Chowk, Rohtak now at Second Floor, Near Siwatch Hospital, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager.
- M/s Rising Stars Mobile India Pvt. Ltd., (Manufacturer Nokia Mobile), Plot No.M-28, Sipcot Industrial Park Phase II, HiTech SEZ, DTA Area, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram-602106, Tamil Nadu through its Director./M.D./Authorized person.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Pardeep Mittal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Satpal Saini, Advocate for opposite party No.3.
Opposite party No.1 & 2 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a mobile phone of Nokia 3 from the opposite party No.1 vide invoice no.16981 dated 05.09.2017 for Rs.9500/-. That the mobile in question was not working properly as it has problems of auto shut down, charging problem. That complainant visited the respondent no.2 many times but the mobile in question could not be repaired. That on 21.07.2018 the complainant again approached the opposite party no.2 but after repeated visits of the complainant to the service centre of the company, the problem could not be resolved and the set is lying with the respondent no.2 and they did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. That complainant served a legal notice to the opposite parties but of no use. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of mobile set alongwith interest, compensation and cost of litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. However opposite party No.1 & 2 did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.10.2018 of this Forum. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence on record to support his allegation of defect in the handset. It is further submitted that the complainant has not adduced any job sheet to establish that he has/had ever approached any authorized service center of the answering OP for repair or service or that his handset was checked/inspected by an authorized service center nor has he provided any evidence/documentary proof in reference to the alleged problem in the Handset. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, document Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW10 and closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the OP No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties we have observed that the complainant had purchased the handset on 05.09.2017 for Rs.9500/-. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, there was defect in the mobile set which could not be removed by the opposite parties within warranty period. On the other hand, opposite party No.3 as per its affidavit Ex.RW1/A has submitted that complainant has not adduced any job sheet to establish that he has/had ever approached any authorized service center of the
answering OP and has not placed on file the alleged job sheet dated 21.07.2018 or any documentary proof to substantiate that the complainant approached the ASC, i.e. the OP No.2, and thus the alleged defect in the hand set without adducing any documentary evidence is contrary to the averments. On the other hand, we have placed reliance upon the copy of job sheet Ex.CW2 dated 21.07.2018 placed on record by the complainant, as per which there were problems in the mobile set like “Hang issue, battery auto dis./auto shut down heat etc.” This job sheet has been issued by the Global mobile Care i.e. opposite party no.2 which is authorized service centre of Nokia Company. Hence the objection of opposite party No.3 is turned down. It is also observed that defects in the mobile set appeared within warranty period but the same could not be removed by the opposite parties despite the repeated requests of the complainant. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such opposite party no.3 being manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 40% depreciation on the price of mobile set as the complainant has used the mobile set uninterruptedly for 11 months.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 to refund the price of mobile set(Rs.9500/-) after deduction of 40% depreciation i.e. to pay Rs.5700/- (Rupees five thousand seven hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 24.08.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, mobile in question is already in the possession of service centre i.e. opposite party No.2.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
03.06.2019.
…………………………..
Nagender Singh Kadian,
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
