Ramesh Kumar son of late Sh. Dina Nath resident of House No. 280/2 Purani Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.





…Complainant

V/S

Chandan Kumar Prop. Chandan Electronics, authorized Dealer of Nokia, Seri Bazar, Mandi, Mandi District Mandi, H.P.







…..Opposite party




ORDER.




This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite party. The case as set out by the complainant in the complaint is that he purchased a mobile hand set i.e. Nokia -2626 F Red IMEII-356395022758282 on 23-12-2008 in the sum of Rs.2200/- from the opposite party on 23-12-2008 as per cash memo No.3482. The complainant alleged that after a week of purchase of the said mobile handset developed manufacturing defect as it got switched off at its own without operating the said handset and the complainant has been deprived of from various important calls as the complainant is the contractor who deals in painting . The complainant further averred that he visited the opposite party on 10-1-2009 and showed the hand set and apprised the manufacturing defect in it and he was told to hand over the set to the opposite party as the same would be repaired . The set was repaired and returned to the complainant on 24-1-2009 and was told that the defect has been removed .


The complainant further alleged that after 7-8 days same defects developed and hand set was shown to the opposite party for repair but despite best efforts the manufacturing defect could not be removed and set was returned . The complainant further alleged the opposite party was asked either to repair the mobile hand set or to exchange the same but of no avail . It has also been averred that the opposite party has not removed the defect which amounts to deficiency in service .With these allegations the complainant had prayed that the opposite party be directed either to exchange the mobile handset or to pay Rs.2200/- the cost of mobile with up to date interest at the rate of 9% . Apart from this , Rs.5000/- has been claimed on account of mental torture , agony and loss . Cost of complaint has also been claimed

2 The opposite party was issued notice but failed to contest the complaint and was proceeded against exparte on 30-3-2009.

3. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the entire record. The complainant in support of the allegations made in the complaint had placed on record invoice / bill/ cash memo dated 23-12-2008 Annexure C-1. The perusal of the same shows that mobile set F Red with IMEII-356395022758282 was purchased by the complainant in the sum of Rs.2200/- from the opposite party. During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant has applied permission to examine the mobile hand set from expert which was allowed . The complainant got the set examined from Sahil Communication who in his report on record has held as under:-

“I have inspected the above Nokia 2626 mobile which is switching off after some time as per order of this ld. Forum and found that battery and software of mobile are in proper working . But power IC of mobile is not working properly and not repairable which is due to manufacturing defect.”



Not only this the complainant in support of his complaint has also filed his own affidavit by way of evidence .The opposite party has failed to contest the complaint and was proceeded against exparte which shows that he has nothing to say in the matter except to admit the averments made in the complaint. As discussed above, the opposite party has not contested the complaint , therefore , we have no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant which is duly supported by means of his affidavit and report of expert that the set is defective one as the IC is defective which according to expert is manufacturing defect. . The cash memo further shows that the set in question was purchased on 23-12-2008 and the same had developed defects within the warranty period. Therefore , we hold that the mobile set sold to the complainant by the opposite party is defective . The opposite party is liable either to replace the set with new one or refund its price and also to compensate the complainant on account of harassment suffered by the him as well as for deficiency in service .

4 In view of above discussion , the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed either to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund its price i.e. Rs.2200/- within a period of one month from today . The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.500/- on account of compensation for harassment and Rs.500/- as costs of complaint.



5 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as



per Rules.



6 File, after due completion be consigned to the Record

1) Sri Sujit Kumar Sarkar,

2/57A, Sree Colony, Regent Estate,

Kolkata-700092. ---------- Complainant

---Verses---

1) Nokia Care,

37, Shakespeare Sarani,

Kolkata-700017. ---------- Opposite Party









The complainant filed this petition u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging the deficiency of service caused by the o.ps. by not repairing the mobile hand set of Nokia make, model no.32308 IMEI no.355694009547671, purchased by him on 30.3.06 on payment of Rs.9800/- from o.p. no.2. After purchase of the same, within 5 ½ month the mobile set went out of order and he took it to the o.p.no.1, Nokia Care, on 19.9.06, which was returned back to him on 1.11.06 without doing any repairing work as it appears in the jobsheet attached with the complaint/petition.


Although in the jobsheet, in the column ‘Repaired done’, the remark is ‘Module Tempered Return without Repair’. As the set was within the warranty period, the complainant took it to the o.p. no.1 for necessary repairing work. But o.p. no.1 refused to do that on the plea that the set was tampered, which according to the complainant is totally false, since the set was within the warranty period, he had not given it to anywhere else other than the Nokia Authorized Service Centre, i.e. o.p. no.1. After that, the set was taken to o.p. no.2 Pentagon Centre for necessary repairing work.


But o.p. no.2 also refused to do anything. Then the complainant lodged a complaint with Consumer Forum, Bhavani Bhawan and on their persuasion, o.p. no.2 repaired the set twice with an extended warranty but both the times the hand set stopped working within few hours. And finding no other alternatives, the complainant filed this petition praying for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to replace the set by a set of similar value and quality, to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the harassment and inconvenience caused to him due to deficiency of service on the part of the o.ps. along with cost of proceedings. Notices were served upon the o.ps. None appeared. No w/v was filed by either of the o.ps.

Decision with reasons :

By purchasing a mobile hand set, the complainant becomes a consumer of o.p. nos.1 and 2. O.p. no.1, Nokia Care did not repair the hand set in spite of the fact that the set was within the warranty period. And from the ‘Service Jobsheet’ dt.19.9.06 given by o.p. no.2, it appears that the endorsement of ‘Set Tampered’ was made on 25.10.06, although any noting of any sort tampering in the set should have been noticed and endorsed on the very day when it was given for repairing, i.e. on 19.9.06. and under the column ‘Reported Fault’, it is written ‘Power : Doesn’t Switch On’. And the complainant was asked to take the delivery of the set after ten days. But after ten days, o.p. no.2 took a further time to repair the same, and even at that point of time, o.p. no.2 never told the complainant that the set was tampered.


They mentioned it on the jobsheet only on 25.10.06 while returning it to the complain ant without doing any repairing work. Here, the o.p. no.2 is found guilty with malafide intension to harass the complainant. Moreover, no written version is filed by either of the o.ps. Hence, there is nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. And o.p. no.1 also did not render their services to the complainant and o.p. no.1 was found deficient in providing service by not repairing the mobile set, which went out of order within 5 ½ months of its purchase. Accordingly, we hold both the o.ps. are deficient in providing service to the complainant.

Hence,

Ordered,

That the o.p. no.2 is directed to replace the mobile hand set in question of similar value i.e. of Rs.9800/- (Rupees nine thousand eight hundred) only and of same and similar quality on receipt of defective mobile hand set in question and o.p. no.1 and o.p. no.2 jointly and severally are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only along with a litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only. The o.ps. are directed to comply the order within one month from the date of communication of this order, in default, it will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization. Fees paid are correct.

Supply copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees.

Ramesh Kumar son of late Sh. Dina Nath resident of House No. 280/2 Purani Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.





…Complainant

V/S

Chandan Kumar Prop. Chandan Electronics, authorized Dealer of Nokia, Mandi District Mandi, H.P.







…..Opposite party


ORDER.



This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite party. The case as set out by the complainant in the complaint is that he purchased a mobile hand set i.e. Nokia -2626 F Red IMEII-356395022758282 on 23-12-2008 in the sum of Rs.2200/- from the opposite party on 23-12-2008 as per cash memo No.3482. The complainant alleged that after a week of purchase of the said mobile handset developed manufacturing defect as it got switched off at its own without operating the said handset and the complainant has been deprived of from various important calls as the complainant is the contractor who deals in painting .


The complainant further averred that he visited the opposite party on 10-1-2009 and showed the hand set and apprised the manufacturing defect in it and he was told to hand over the set to the opposite party as the same would be repaired . The set was repaired and returned to the complainant on 24-1-2009 and was told that the defect has been removed . The complainant further alleged that after 7-8 days same defects developed and hand set was shown to the opposite party for repair but despite best efforts the manufacturing defect could not be removed and set was returned .


The complainant further alleged the opposite party was asked either to repair the mobile hand set or to exchange the same but of no avail . It has also been averred that the opposite party has not removed the defect which amounts to deficiency in service .With these allegations the complainant had prayed that the opposite party be directed either to exchange the mobile handset or to pay Rs.2200/- the cost of mobile with up to date interest at the rate of 9% . Apart from this , Rs.5000/- has been claimed on account of mental torture , agony and loss . Cost of complaint has also been claimed

2 The opposite party was issued notice but failed to contest the complaint and was proceeded against exparte on 30-3-2009.

3. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the entire record. The complainant in support of the allegations made in the complaint had placed on record invoice / bill/ cash memo dated 23-12-2008 Annexure C-1. The perusal of the same shows that mobile set F Red with IMEII-356395022758282 was purchased by the complainant in the sum of Rs.2200/- from the opposite party. During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant has applied permission to examine the mobile hand set from expert which was allowed . The complainant got the set examined from Sahil Communication who in his report on record has held as under:-

“I have inspected the above Nokia 2626 mobile which is switching off after some time as per order of this ld. Forum and found that battery and software of mobile are in proper working . But power IC of mobile is not working properly and not repairable which is due to manufacturing defect.”



Not only this the complainant in support of his complaint has also filed his own affidavit by way of evidence .The opposite party has failed to contest the complaint and was proceeded against exparte which shows that he has nothing to say in the matter except to admit the averments made in the complaint. As discussed above, the opposite party has not contested the complaint , therefore , we have no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant which is duly supported by means of his affidavit and report of expert that the set is defective one as the IC is defective which according to expert is manufacturing defect. .


The cash memo further shows that the set in question was purchased on 23-12-2008 and the same had developed defects within the warranty period. Therefore , we hold that the mobile set sold to the complainant by the opposite party is defective . The opposite party is liable either to replace the set with new one or refund its price and also to compensate the complainant on account of harassment suffered by the him as well as for deficiency in service .

4 In view of above discussion , the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed either to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund its price i.e. Rs.2200/- within a period of one month from today . The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.500/- on account of compensation for harassment and Rs.500/- as costs of complaint.



5 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as



per Rules.



6 File, after due completion be consigned to the Record

Room.

Sh.Ravinder Guleria son of Sh. Megh Singh Guleria resident of village Manyana, Post Office Tilli, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.

…Complainant



V/S



1. Divyam Communication Shop No.52/53 Indira

Market Mandi Town, District Mandi, H.P. through its proprietor

2. India Nokia Centre c/o Nokia India Pvt Ltd J-4

Block Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area Delhi 30303838 through its Managing Director .







ORDER.

This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite parties . Brief facts of the complaint as set up by the complainant are that he purchased a Nokia 5310 Mobile set bearing IMEI No. 358653014905586 vide cash memo No.6699 on 11-4-2008 for Rs.8950/- from the opposite party No.1 being dealer of the opposite party No.2. The mobile set was provided warranty of one year as per cash memo Annexure C-1. After 15 days from the purchase of the set in question, it turned out of order and this fact was brought to the notice of the opposite party No.1 who carried out some repair and told that the mobile set is having some inherent manufacturing defect and will be replaced with new one after negotiation with the opposite party No.2.


The complainant alleged that the mobile set again turned out of order on various occasions and same was repaired and was assured to replace the same . The complainant served the opposite parties with legal notice requesting to replace the mobile set in question but neither the notice was responded nor mobile replaced . The complainant further alleged that he visited the opposite party No.1 on 21-4-2009 and asked to do the needful then opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to hand over the set to them for repair and orally told that Rs.1000/- would be charged for repair and when he refused to pay repair charges by saying that it covers under warranty then he was told that the warranty had already expired on 11-4-2009.



The complainant averred that he was under the impression that he had purchased the mobile on 11-5-2008 and warranty will expire on 11-5-2009 and for this reason there is delay of ten days in filing the complaint. With these allegations the complainant had sought direction to the opposite parties to replace the mobile had set with new one of same price or refund Rs.8950/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 11-4-2008 till payment and also to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation apart from costs of litigation.

2. The opposite parties were duly served but failed to contest the complaint and were proceeded against exparte

3. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record. The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a Nokia mobile phone of model No.5310 bearing IMIE No.358653014905586 from the opposite party No.1 vide cash memo No.6698 dated 11-4-2008 in the sum of Rs.8950/- but the same turned out of order after 15 days of the purchase of the set .The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and this fact was brought to its notice who carried out some repair and told that the set was having inherent manufacturing defect and would be replaced with new one after negotiating with the opposite party No.2. The mobile set developed defects time and again and every time the complainant was assured to replace the same but in vain. The complainant also alleged that he had served the opposite parties with legal notice but the same was also not responded.


The complainant in support of his complaint has filed photocopy of cash memo Annexure C-1 which shows that the set in question was purchased in the sum of Rs.8950/- from the opposite party No.1. Copy of legal notice Annexure C-2 alongwith receipts Annexure C-3 had also been tendered in evidence which also reflect that the opposite parties were duly apprised about the defect in the mobile set but no action was taken . Not only this , the complainant had also adduced in evidence photocopy of the receipt given by the opposite party No.1 on account of receipt of mobile set for repair which is Annexure C-4 .The complainant has also filed his own affidavit by way of evidence .The opposite parties have failed to contest the complaint and were proceeded against exparte which shows that they have nothing to say in the matter except to admit the averments made in the complaint.


As discussed above, the opposite parties have not contested the complaint , therefore , we have no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant which is duly supported by means of affidavit that the set is defective one and it has developed defect during the warranty period and the opposite parties have failed to repair it. The complainant has proved that the set in question has been purchased by him from the opposite party No.1 who is dealer of opposite party No.2. Therefore , we hold that the opposite parties are liable to replace the set with new one and also to compensate the complainant on account of harassment suffered by the complainant .

4 In view of above discussion , the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed either to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant or refund its price i.e. Rs.8950/ - within a period of one month from today . The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.500/- on account of compensation for harassment and Rs.500/- as costs of complaint.

10 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.

11 File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

Dear Sir
I have bought a nokia N73-5 RM-132 In july 08. I bought this phone only because I want to use 3G spectrum. But the time I bought this phone 3G was not available in India, therefore I could not cross check whether supports 3G or not. But The dealer assured me that this is a 3G supported mobile. But when I used 3G simcard in mobile it was not supporting 3G. In this regard I contact to Nokia care. Firstly they told me that this problem is due to corrupted software but they couldn`t do anything by reinstalling the software. Finally they asked to call Nokia customer care on 30303838. Even they also did not know why this problem is occurring so they again referred me to service center to check it out physically. After all this I searched on net on Nokia website but there is no information about 3G non supporting Nokia N73 mobiles. So the case is simply to misguide by the company about this mobile. This problem is not only limited to me but also with all customers using these mobile.Dear Sir I want ur help to look into the matter and do the needful.

Regards
Rakesh Ralhan
Ph No.- 9467740558

my hand set not starting immediately

Dear Sir,

My name is Amjad Hussain resident of Delhi.

I have a complaint regarding NOKIA Company.

3Yrs back I purchased a NOKIA-6708 touchscreen model,within two months the phone was in NOKIA CARE for softwere problems sometimes the tochscreen did'nt work.In 1 year I submitted the phone thrice for various reasons finally I sold it to someone.

After that I purchased NOKIA E-51 within 3months it was in NOKIA CARE becuase of softwere problems I got my phone back after 1 month.Finally after sometime I sold that too 2 months back.

I purchased NOKIA N-97 the latest one but to my surprise within 2 months of the phone is in NOKIA CARE as the touchscreen is not working,It hangs atleast 10 times in 1 day,the applications like PVR,bookmyshow does'nt work.After spending 320000/-Rs this is what a consumer gets.Now I am telling them to refund my money but they are nither replacing nor they are refunding my money.

They must REFUND my hard earned money so that I can buy a BLACKBERRY.

NOKIA should be charged with selling SUB-STANDERED product in the market.

I will never buy a NOKIA in my life now.

Kindly help me.


Amjad Hussain.
+919811224883.
amjadxin@hotmail.com

sir,

I'm Karan Chopra from Chandigarh. i belong to a middle class family and have recently completed my Engg. on "Education Loan". My mother gifted me a handset and it was very expensive. now its out of warranty and gave to the local Nokia Care centre for repair. they first that it'll cost RS. 1200 to fix my handset, i asked them to negotiate, he directlycame to 980/- . I agreed to it. they gave warranty of a month and still the problem was not fixed. It was tough for me to afford that much price in those days and he kept that handset and said that they'll have to send it to Delhi just in order to cover up the warranty period. now i cant check whether the problem is solved or not as now its mic is not working. these people are harrasing youngsters and peole like us are scared of these cout cases. i want to take initiative in this. i needed your help and wanted to know that is there any way that i can sue these peopl as my earning is not that high. hope this is possible. sir, i'm seeking forward for help, as there's no 1 to guide me as my dad is no more and i dnt know about all these legal actions. thank you sir

Karan Chopra
09464541829
karan_ciet@yahoo.com

karan_chopra nokia care harassing customers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sir,

I'm Karan Chopra from Chandigarh. i belong to a middle class family and have recently completed my Engg. on "Education Loan". My mother gifted me a handset and it was very expensive. now its out of warranty and gave to the local Nokia Care centre for repair. they first told me that it'll cost me around RS. 1200 to fix my handset, i asked them to negotiate, he directlycame to 980/- . I agreed to it. they gave warranty of a month and still the problem was not fixed. It was tough for me to afford that much price in those days and he kept that handset and said that they'll have to send it to Delhi just in order to cover up the warranty period. now i cant check whether the problem is solved or not as now its mic is not working, they hav created more problems instead of solving 1. these people are harrasing youngsters and people like us are scared of these court cases. i want to take initiative in this. i needed your help and wanted to know that is there any way that i can sue these peopl as my earning is not that high. hope this is possible. sir, i'm seeking forward for your help, as there's no 1 to guide me as my dad is no more and i dnt know about all these legal actions. thank you sir

Karan Chopra
09464541829
karan_ciet@yahoo.com

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO.105/2009.
Surendra Narayan Naik (37 Yrs.),

S/o; Satya Narayan Naik,

R/o: Old Cinema Hall Road,Po:Rangadhipa,

Ps: Town,Dist: Sundargarh,Orissa. .............................Complainant.

Versus
1. Propritor,

Maya Music Centre,

Govt. Bus Stand Chowk, Sundargarh Town,

Ps: Town, Dist; Sundargarh, Orissa.


2. Nokia India Private Limited,

2nd Floor ,Commercial Plaza,

Redisson Hotel N.H.8,Mahipalpur,

New Delhi- 110 037. .................................................. ......Opp. Parties.


Counsel for the parties:-


For the Complainant Self.

For the Opp .Parties. Sri R.K.Nanda, Adv. & Ors.



O R D E R Dated : 16.11.09



Md. Inclab Ummar, President:-


Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is the complaint of the complainant.


1. In brief the case of the complainant is that the complainant has purchased a Nokia hand set vide model no. 5310 and EMI No. 352072029421321 on dt.15.10.2008 on payment of a sum of Rs.8,200/- from O.P.No.1. But after six months of its purchase the mobile set of the complainant started giving problem, such as key problem, mobile got hang when taking with another mobile for which the complaint approached O.P.No.1 but the O.P.No.1 advised to contact with Nokia care centere,Jharsuguda. Accordingly the complainant take the mobile

-2-

set to the Nokia Care Centre Jharsuguda. The Nokia Care Centre after repairing the same returned the set to the complainant on the same day but after a month the same problem was in the mobile set of the complainant. Again the complainant went to Nokia Care Centre,Jharsuguda for the repair of his mobile set but it was told to the complainant that there is software problem in the mobile set and it needs to sent to Delhi for repair then the complainant approached O.P.No.1 for the replacement of the set as there is manufacturing defect and the O.P.No.1 assured after consulting with the company to replaced the mobile set of the complainant but no step has been taken for its replacement in spite of repeated request for which the complainant has filed this case with a prayer for a direction to the O.P.No.2 to replace a new Nokia mobile set of same cost through O.P.No.1 and O.Ps. to pay Rs.30,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.



2. The O.P.No.1 remain absent in spite of receipt of notice from this District Forum to submit the written version. The O.P.No.1 neither appear nor submitted the written version for which he has been set ex-parte.


The O.P.No.2 appeared through its learned advocate and filed the written version wherein it has been submitted that the complainant is leveling false allegation against the O.P. The complainant's case is sheer reflection of misuse of the mobile set for which O.P.No.2 can not be held responsible. The allegation made in the complaint are baseless, frivolous devoid of any merit without any valid cause of action against the O.P and prayed for the dismissal of the case as there is no merit in it.

3. Heard the learned advocate appearing for the complainant and O.P.No.2 and perused the documents as filed by the parties and we have gone through the case in detail. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a Nokia mobile hand set from the O.P.No.1 on payment of Rs.8,200/- on dt.15.10.08 and the complainant has also received a retail invoice from O.P.No.1. The complainant has also submitted one service Centre detail from Nokia Care Centre for the repair of the defective of his set. From the said documents we are satisfied that there is defect in the mobile hand set of the complainant which has not been rectified by the O.Ps and it needs replacement.

4. Thus we allows the case of the complainant and direct the O.Ps. to replace a new and defect free mobile hand set of same price of set of the complainant. The O.Ps are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and Rs.2,000/-

-3-

(Rupees two thousand) only as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the awarded amount would carry interest at the rate of 12%(twelve Percent) per annum from the date of receipt of this order till the dated of actual payment.


The case is disposed off accordingly.

Complainant is allowed.

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO.101/2009.


Sanjay kumar Sahu,

S/o: Prahalad sahu,

R/o: Nuapada,Sundargarh Town,

Ps: Town,Dist: Sundargarh,Orissa. .............................Complainant.


Versus


1. Nokia India Private Limited,

2nd Floor ,commercial Plaza,

Redisson Hotel N.H.8,Mahipalpur,

New Delhi- 110 037.


2. Propritor,

Maya Music Centre,

Govt. Bus stand Chowk,sundargarh town,

Ps: Town, dist; Sundargarh, Orissa..................................Opp. Parties.


Counsel for the parties:-


For the Complainant Sri. Tarakant Raxa, Adv. & Ors.

For the Opp .Party No-1 Sri R.K.Nanda, Adv. & Ors.

For the Opp .Party No-2 Ex-parte


O R D E R Dated : 16.11.09



Md. Inclab Ummar, President:-


Deficiency in service is the complaint of the complainant.


1. In brief the case of the complainant is that he had purchased one Mobile set of Nokia make 3610 bearing No. IMEI 356785023309541 from the O.P.No.2 on dt.14.01.09. The said mobile set started giving problem for which the complainant gave the same to O.P.No.2 on dt.06.05.09 for repair which was within the warranty period. The said mobile set was returned to the complainant after its repair by O.P.No.2. In spite of the repair after a couple of days the mobile set went out of order for which the complainant again approached the O.P.No.2 for replacement of the same but the O.P.No.2 expressed his inability in

-2-

helping the petitioner rather advised him to take the shelter of Consumer forum for which the complainant has filed the instant dispute case with a prayer for a direction to the O.Ps to replace the new mobile set against the defective mobile set and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment.



2. After receipt of the notice from this District forum the O.P.No.2 neither appeared nor filed the written version for which O.P.No.2 is set ex-parte.


The O.P.No.1 appeared through its learned advocate and submitted the written version wherein it has been stated that as regards the replacement of the hand set the refund/replacement of hand set does not falls in its ambit. The complainant purchased the hand set which at the time of purchase was free from any mechanical defect or even any fault in its material designs and workmanship and satisfactory used it without facing any defect in the hand set. Hence the complainant in the grab of this false complaint petition wants to Black mail the O.P by way of extract money from the O.P. Further the damaged for a sum of Rs.20,000/- claimed towards harassment and mental agony and prayed for the dismissal of the case.


3. Heard the learned advocate appearing for the complainant and O.P.No.1 perused the documents as filed by the parties in their support. We have gone through the case in detail. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a Nokia mobile hand set from the O.P.No.1 on payment of Rs.6,990/- on dt.14.01.09 and the mobile set of the complainant started giving problem after five months of its purchase for which the complainant sent the same to O.P.No.2 its repair which was within the period of warranty and after repair it was returned to the complainant but after few days of its use the said mobile set again out of order for which the complainant again approached the O.P.No.2 for replacement of the same as the set was defective but the O.P.No.2 expressed his inability in help the petitioner. The complainant has also submitted the serviced job sheet of dt. 06.05.09 and dt.06.07.09. But the defective of the set of the complainant was not rectified for which in our opinion,it needs replacement.


4. Thus under the circumstances we direct the O.P.No.1 to replace a new and defect free mobile set of the same model set of the complainant. The O.P.No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only as compensation for harassment and

-3-

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the awarded amount would carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of receipt of this order till the date of actual payment.


The case is disposed off accordingly.

Complainant is allowed.

Consumer Complaint No: 20/2009

Date of presentation: 20/01/2009

Date of decision: 06/11/2009

Ms. Savita Sharma W/o Sh. Jai Kumar Sharma,

R/o Vill. & P.O. Kather, near Sabzi Mandi, Solan,

Bye–Pass Solan, Tehsil & District Solan, H.P.

… Complainant
Versus
M/s Dizi Tech, Nokia Service Center, below UCO Bank,

The Mall, Solan, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P.



…Opposite Party.

For the complainant: Mr. B.R. Sharma, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party: Mr. Umesh Sharma, Advocate


O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, avers that, on, 19.02.2007, she purchased a Nokia-6085, from the OP, for a sale consideration of Rs.7,000/-. She further avers that during the warranty period, the aforesaid mobile set, developed, defect, hence, the matter was brought to the notice of the OP, and thereafter, the mobile set was delivered to the OP for repairs. The complainant further proceeded to aver that, thereafter, she visited the shop of the OP, on several times, but the OP, on one pretext or the other, delayed its delivery to her after repairs. Lastly, the OP told to her that the mobile set has been lost and offered her used mobile set, which she refused to accept. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OP, in its written version, to the complaint, raised various preliminary objections, regarding maintainability of the complaint, inasmuch, as, estoppal etc. On merits, it is contended that the mobile set was sold to the complainant, on, 19.02.2007 and the warranty was to expire, on, 18.02.2008, regarding which the complainant had filed a complaint, which was dismissed along with the application for its restoration. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable being barred by the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. It is denied that the mobile set was lost, rather the set was delivered to the complainant, after its repairs. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OP, in not returning to her the mobile set, delivered by her to the OP for repair. The parties do not wrangle over the sale and purchase of the mobile set, by the complainant from the OP, for a sale consideration of Rs.7,000/-, on, 19.02.2007. The OP, contests the claim of the complainant, only on the strength, that, since the earlier complaint on a cause of action analogous, to, the one in the instant complaint filed by the complainant, against the OP, was dismissed in default on 20.01.2009, as also, when the application for its restoration met the same fate, therefore, it is contented that the instant complaint, is, barred. The above contention has not been contested by the complainant. Obviously, when, the earlier complaint was dismissed for default, its, having come to be so dismissed, barred the institution of a fresh complaint, on, a similar cause of action. Resultantly the complaint, is, not maintainable, hence, liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. No order as to the costs. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Complaint No.728/5.12.2007

Date of order: 10.11.2009

Baltej Singh son of Sh. Surjit Singh, resident of VPO Phullanwal, Tehsil & Distt. Ludhiana.

(Complainant)
Vs
1. Nokia India Private Limited, IInd. Floor, Commercial Plaza, Radisson Hotel, NH-8, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-37, through its Managing Director.

2. Deekay Beauty Centre, Ghumar Mandi Chowk, Ludhiana through its Proprietor/partner.

3. Solectron Centum Electronics Ltd. S.C.F. No.5, Model Town Extension Market, near New Krishna Mandir, Ludhiana.

(Opposite parties)

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986

Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.
Present:

Sh. B.S. Virk Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Govind Puri Advocate for OP No.1-Nokia India

OP No.2 is ex-parte.

OP No.3 is ex-parte.
O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1. Complainant purchased Nokia-6131 mobile hand set from opposite party no.2 for Rs.11,700/- vide bill no.30361 dated 2.9.2006, carrying warranty of one year. During warranty period, mobile stopped working, qua which complaint was lodged with opposite party no.2 and on his advice, hand set was taken to service centre-OP No.3, who further sent it to their office at Chandigarh. After 15 days, mobile hand set was returned to the complainant assuring that defect has been removed. But complainant refused to accept changed mobile hand set and insisted to return his own mobile hand set. They took time of 15 days to return his original hand set. The second hand set given to him also went out of order after about 10 days. So, opposite party no.3 was immediately contacted and requested to give him his own original mobile hand set. After some days, opposite party no.3 handed over mobile hand set stating that it was the original set of the complainant. But that hand set also went out of order and again deposited the same with opposite party on 15.6.2007 vide job card N1300-150607-003-004. Thereafter, that hand set was neither repaired nor replaced by the opposite parties and is being kept by opposite party no.3 with them. Claimed that mobile hand set was having manufacturing defect. By not repairing the same or giving new hand set or paying its price, opposite parties are claimed guilty of misconduct on account of their negligence. Prayed in this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection act, 1986 that direction be given to the opposite parties to return original mobile hand set in working condition and pay him compensation and litigation costs of Rs.50,000/-.

2. Opposite party no.1-manufacturer of the mobile hand set filed an application in the beginning, after service and appearance in the Fora, giving offer to the complainant, for which had also sent e-mail dated 12.9.2008, as a gesture of goodwill and to maintain satisfaction of the customer, to replace the hand set with model no.5610-D within four weeks, to finally settle claim of the complainant subject to withdrawal of allegations in the complaint by him. Further, it was made clear that same set will carry warranty for 12 months also.

3. But the offer was not accepted by the complainant.

4. Opposite parties no.2 & 3 did not contest the complaint and as such were proceeded ex-parte.

5. Complainant and opposite party no.1, in order to prove their respective versions, adduced their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

6. We have heard the arguments addressed by ld. counsel for the parties, gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

7. When mobile hand set of the complainant was not returned, he consequently issued legal notice Ex.C.6 dated 16.9.2007 to the opposite party and thereafter filed this complaint.

8. It is admitted and not in dispute that the complainant had purchased Nokia-6131 mobile hand set vide invoice Ex.CW1 dated 2.9.2006 for Rs.11,700/- from opposite party no.2, authorised dealer of manufacturer opposite party no.1. This hand set after purchase went out of order and time and again was delivered by the complainant to opposite party no.3, but they failed to rectify the defect and also return the original mobile hand set of the complainant. It is still in possession of the opposite party. So, it means that the hand set is defective and the defect therein could not be rectified by the manufacturer or its service centre.

9. Consequently, we allow this complaint and as a result direct opposite parties to provide new Nokia mobile hand set of model 6131 to the complainant carrying warranty of 12 months from the date of handing over set or return cost of the hand set Rs.11,700/- to the complainant. For thrusting this litigation, opposite parties ordered to pay compensation and litigation cost compositely assessed at Rs.2000/-(Rs. Two Thousands only). Order be complied within 45 days of receipt of copy of the order, which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.

CC. No. 152 of 10-07-2009

Decided on : 16-11-2009

Makhan Singh S/o Sh. Bant Singh, R /o H. No. 20361-C, Jujhar Singh Nagar, Street No. 1/5-A, Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus
1. Mobile Shoppee, Shop No. 3, The Mall, Mobile Market, Near Railway Station, Bathinda.
2. Hind Tele-communication, authorised service centre of Nokia Care Centre, Near Krishna Continental Bibiwala Road, Bathinda.
3. Nokia India Private Limited, 4 F, Tower A &B Cybergreen DLF Cyber City, Sector 25-A, Gurgaon 122002 (Haryana) through its Care Manager.

... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Sh. George, President

Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member


For the Complainant : Sh. N. M. Aggarwal, counsel for the complainant.

For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party No. 2

Sh. Sukhdev Mittal, counsel for opposite party No. 3.

Sh. Krishan Kumar, representative of

opposite party No. 1.


O R D E R


GEORGE, PRESIDENT


1.

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') with the allegations against the opposite parties that he purchased Nokia N-73 IMEI-353548024378284 from opposite party No. 1 vide Invoice No. 635 dated 12-07-2008 for a sum of Rs. 12,980/-. In the month of May, 2009, the said mobile hand set started giving trouble to him when he had gone to Chandigarh in connection with some personal work. He and his son contacted authorised service centre of opposite party No. 3 at Chandigarh and lodged complaint. Since the said service centre found the mobile hand set not working properly, it was retained by them for repair and also assured the complainant and his son, that it will be replaced in case some manufacturing defect is found in it. On 15-06-09 the set was returned to the complainant and after 3-4 days, it again started giving trouble. He contacted opposite party No. 2 i.e. Nokia Care Centre at Bathinda and handed over the set to it for repair on 17-06-09. On 29-06-2009, opposite party No. 2 returned the set to him and assured that mobile hand set has been repaired and set right and there will be no problem in future. Since the set was not working properly, he again contacted opposite party No. 2 on 02-07-09 and 03-07-09 and ultimately he handed over the hand set again to opposite party No. 2 on 03-07-09 for which job sheet was prepared wherein target delivery was mentioned as 03-07-2009. He asserts that till today neither his mobile hand set duly repaired nor new hand set has been delivered to him. He has been contacting opposite party No. 2 frequently and requesting it to give replacement of the mobile hand set as he is in dire need of the same because his official work is suffering without the same, but to no effect. Due to the adamant act of the opposite parties, apart from monetary loss of the price of the hand set, he has suffered mental tension, agony, harassment and inconvenience. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to pay him sum of Rs. 12,980/- being the price of the hand set and also to pay him Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and any other additional and/or alternative relief.
2.

The opposite party No. 2 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint is false and baseless; complainant has no locus standi or cause of action; he is guilty of suppressing true facts and he is estopped from filing the present complaint. On merits, it has been submitted that there was no problem/defect in the set and the same was working well when the complainant first time approached to answering opposite party. The complainant pressurize the answering opposite party to deposit the same with the intention to file a false complaint against it. It has been pleaded that it is still ready to replace the handset in question with a new one for the entire satisfaction of the complainant. All other remaining averments made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the same.
3.

The opposite party No. 1 did not file any written reply and made a statement that the reply filed by opposite party No. 2 be read as his reply also.
4.

Despite providing various opportunities, opposite party No. 3 did not file any reply and accordingly its defence was struck of.
5.

In support of his averments contained in the complaint, the complainant has produced in evidence bill dated 12-07-08 Ex. C-1, photocopies of job sheets Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3, photocopy of letter dated 03-07-09 Ex. C-4 and affidavit of complainant Ex. C-5.
6.

To controvert the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Amit Setia Ex. R-1.
7.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record of the case.
8.

During the course of arguments, Sh. Sukhdev Mittal, the learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 made a statement before this Forum that he has been instructed by opposite party No. 3 that the matter may be settled amicably and complainant may be provided with a new mobile hand Set N-73 with a fresh warranty for the full period or in the alternative, the complainant may be reimbursed the amount which he has spent for the purchase of mobile hand set i.e. Rs. 12,980/-.
9.

We have taken into consideration offer made by Sh. Sukhdev Mittal, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party No. 3. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the complainant has been deprived of the use of the hand set from 17-06-2009 till date as it was deposited by the complainant with opposite party No. 2 who is admittedly service centre of opposite party No. 3 and till date, the hand set has not been returned to the complainant after due repairs, we therefore accept the complaint against opposite party No. 3 and direct opposite party No. 3 to pay the complainant cost of the mobile hand set N-73 i.e. Rs. 12,980/- with interest @9% P.A. w.e.f. 17-06-2009 till the date of payment, alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- for harassment, mental tension and inconvenience suffered by him besides litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 2,000/-.
10.

The complaint qua opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is dismissed.
11.

The opposite party No. 3 is directed to comply this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be indexed and consigned.

CC. No.236 of 2008
Between:-
Md.Basheeruddin,

S/o Late Md.Khasim, Aged 44 Years,

Occ: Service,

Plot No.131, Road No.3,

Deendayal Nagar, Neredmet,

HYDERABAD – 500 056.

…..Complainant
AND

1. The Mobile Store,

M/s.Essar Telecom Retail Limited,

Maruthi Arcade, A.S.Rao Nagar,

HYDERABAD.

Ranga Reddy District, Represented by

its Manager Mr.A.Ravi.



2. Centre Manager,

Nokia Care Centre,

M/s.V.S.Communications,

Shop No. 5 & 6, Ground Floor,

Aditya Mansion,

Opp:GHMC – Kapra Circle, ECIL,

HYDERABAD – 500 062.



3. The Care Manager,

Nokia India Private Limited,

4F, Tower A & B, Cybergreen,

DLF Cyber City, Sector – 25 A,

GURGAON – 122 002,

Haryana State. ….Opposite Parties



Counsel for the Complainant : M/s.S.Balachander, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties No. 1. : Ex-parte

No.2. : M/s.Ch.V.Satyanarayana Rao,

& Other, Advocates

No.3. : M/s.S.Leo Raj & Other

Advocates

QUORUM: 1. Sri. M.RAMA RAO, PRESIDENT

2. Smt. M.NARAYANAMMA, LADY MEMBER


(AS PER HON’BLE Smt. M.NARAYANAMMA, LADY MEMBER, ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)



ON THIS THE 20th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009

ORDER



This complaint is filed U/Sec.12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking direction to the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.11,152/- i.e cost of Nokia Mobile - N70 (Music) Black and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.6,000/- to the Complainant.

2. Brief facts of the Case are as follows: That on 24-10-2007 the complainant had purchased one Nokia Mobile - N70 (Music) Black IME No.356294017152884 with warranty period of one year IME No.356294017152884 from the opposite party No.1 for Rs.11,152.02 vide invoice no.AP/01138/00002/1163 Dt.24-10-2007. After 9 months from the date of purchase on 28-07-2008 the said mobile unit stopped functioning as display on the screen appeared blank resulting the mobile unit is not use to the complainant and the same was informed to the opposite party no.1 On advise of the opposite party no.1 the complainant contacted Nokia Care Centre for repairing the said mobile and also handed over to the authorized centre at opposite party no.2 on 29.07.2008 and the same was received by opposite party no.1 and issued job sheet no.4294303/08, from the date of handed over the said phone time to time the complainant visit the Opposite Party no.2 for every two days. On 7th August, 2008 the Opposite Party No.2 reported that the mother board was to be replaced and assured the complainant the said mobile phone would be delivered duly by 31.08.2008 vide job sheet No.429434038/080731/32. But opposite party failed to deliver the said phone by 31.08.2008 and he informed that he has reported to the office of Nokia Care Centre at Bangalore on 03.09.2008 and the same was registered as complaint No.2-3BCHNP and as there was no response till 25.09.2008. Further the Opposite Party No.2 handed over to the complainant one old used and worn out handset belongs to some one else, trying to convince him to use the same and the same was returned by the complainant on 26.09.2008 to the Opposite Party No.2 and demanded his original Nokia Mobile set and on the same day the opposite party issued a fresh job sheet stating that customer not agreed for panel hand set. The Opposite Party No.2 sold the said cell phone with a manufacturing defect through the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 & 3 are not willing to accept that the mobile unit was a defective one and was not rectified even after lapse of 75 days inspite of several requests, telephone calls and personal visits, that in above circumstances the complainant got issued a legal notice to the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 calling upon to arrange the cost of Nokia Mobile Set along with the compensation and cost and the said notice was received by opposite parties and not replied for the same. Hence the complaint.

3. Opposite Party No.1 called absent and set ex-parte on 13.02.2009.

4. The case of the opposite party no.2 is as follows:-

The opposite party no.2 stated that the complainant has used the mobile for more than 9 months and with an ill-motive intention has given the mobile for repair deliberately for unlawful gain and the complainant has not given any details about when the opposite party no.2 and not aware that the complainant has contacted the opposite party no.1 and on the advice of the opposite party no.1 the complainant handed over the mobile to the authorized centre of the opposite party no.2 for rectification of the defect and denied he has asked the complainant to visit the service point from time to time on every two days since 31.07.2008 to 31.08.2008 and has given one old worn out handset belonging to someone else and stated that the complainant has satisfied himself and has taken the handset on 25th but on next day the complainant has come back to service point of the opposite party no.2 along with another person and intentionally thrown the handset and shouted, made lot of mess and the customer’s present were scared and the complainant has taken he job sheet by compelling the staff to write “customer not agreed” for panel set and the packing box was not returned to the opposite party as the mobile given by the customer is given to the company with the box and stated that there was no manufacturing defect as the complainant has used the handset for many months and the complainant was not claiming the mobile. After receipt of the legal notice of the complainant the opposite party tried to settle the matter amicably and offered to give the mobile selected by the complainant. But the complainant has refused to take the same and was only interested claiming for refund of amount of the handset and the compensation. Still as on today the mobile meant for the complainant has replaced was very much available at the service point of the opposite party no.2 and the same will be delivered to the complainant as and when he required and there was no deficiency in service on the opposite party no.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

6. The case of the opposite party no.3 is as follows:-

The opposite party no.3 has stated the complainant misused the mobile phone and as such corrupted the delicate gadget of the mobile set and claiming the benefits of warranty period is illegal, vexatious and without application of mind. And the complainant himself responsible for the alleged defects in the mobile set as the complainant is making vague allegations in respect of alleged technical defects without any kind of there of and had used his mobile set for sometime without any problem. Further every customer get one year limited warranty period subject terms and conditions, contained in the warranty card and that the warranty on the mobile set is not absolute but limited to terms and conditions, the brief extract thereof as follows:-

“this limited warranty period does not cover normal wear and tear (including without limitation, wear and tear of camera lenses, batteries and displays, transport costs, defects caused by rough handling (including, without limitation, defects caused by sharp items, by bending, compressing, or dropping etc., defects or damage caused by misusage of the product including the use, contrary to the instructions provided by Nokia, other acts beyond reasonable control of Nokia” and each and every mobile set of Nokia is subjected to robust quality control. Several rounds of assessment or reassessment is done by the teams of the professional team engineers before the mobile set, being launched in the market. Hence, the allegations pertaining to the alleged manufacturing defects are totally unfounded and lacking the element of reliability. Further the opposite party stated that merely going to Nokia service centre, cannot be tacit proof the alleged defects, the alleged defects may be out of misuse or illegal operation of the mobile set. Further, that the issuance of the job sheet by the authorized service centre against the mobile set of the complainant cannot be acknowledgement of the complainant. As the issuance of the job sheet to the complainant is the receipt for the preliminary investigation. Therefore, it is stated that the job sheet cannot be used as documents for the establishment of the allegation that the mobile set in question is having alleged manufacturing defects. The complainant has not enclosed any documents to substantiate the allegations made in the complainant, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7. Proof affidavit filed by the complainant and opposite parties 2 & 3 reiterating the contents of the complaints. Ex A1 to A8 are marked. And written arguments filed by the opposite parties no.2.

8. Now the points for consideration are

1) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

3) To what relief is the complainant is entitled?



9. Having regard to the facts of the case and material on record the admitted fact purchase of Nokia Mobile - N70 (Music) Black with the warranty period of one year IME No.356294017152884 from the opposite party No.1 for Rs.11,152.02 vide invoice no.AP/01138/00002/1163 Dt.24-10-2007.

10. The contention of the complainant is that, after 9 months from the date of purchase on 28-07-2008 the said mobile unit stopped functioning as display on the screen appeared blank resulting the mobile unit is not useful to the complainant and the same was informed to the opposite party no.1. On advise of the opposite party no.1 the complainant handed over the said mobile to the authorized centre of opposite party no.2 on 29.07.2008 and the same was received by opposite party no.1 and issued job sheet no.4294303/08. From the date of handing over the said phone the complainant made visits to the Opposite Party no.2 for every two days. The Opposite Party No.2 sold the said cell phone with a manufacturing defect through the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 & 3 were not willing to accept that the mobile unit was a defective one and have not rectified even after lapse of 75 days inspite of several requests, telephone calls and personal visits.

11. The opposite party No.2 contended that there was no manufacturing defect, as the complainant has used the handset for many months and after receipt of the notice of the complainant the opposite party No.2 offered to give the mobile, selected by the complainant but the complainant has refused to take the same and claimed for refund of the amount and compensation. Still as on today the mobile meant for the complainant as replacement was very much available at the service point the opposite party no.2 and the same will be delivered to the complainant and when required. The opposite party no.3 contended in his counter that the complainant has used the mobile set for sometime without any problem and alleged the defects in the mobile set as the complainant is making allegation in-respect of alleged technical defects without any kind of proof and every customer gets one year limited warranty period subject to terms and conditions containing in the warranty card and several assessment or reassessment is done by the teams of the professional team engineers before the mobile set, being launched in the market. And the complainant did not enclose any single document to substantiate the allegation.



12. In support of complainant’s cases he relied on documents Ex.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is the Tax Invoice No.AP/01138/00002/1163 Dt.24.10.07 issued by the opposite party no.1 in favour of the complainant reveals that the complainant purchased mobile set for Rs.11,152.02 from the opposite party no.1. Ex.A2 is the Service job sheet dt.29.07.2008 issued by the Nokia service centre in favour of the complainant reveals that the opposite party received the said mobile set and

13. In view of rival contentions and on perusal of the documents filed by the complainant vide Ex.A1 to A8. It is clear that the complainant has purchased one Nokia Mobile Set – Music – Black from the op no.1 on 24.11.2007 for Rs.11,152.02 vide inv.no.AP/01138/00002/1163 the Ex.A1 tax invoice proves the same. After nine months from the date of purchase of the Cell phone from the op no.1 stopped functioning as display on the screen appeared blank and the same was informed to the opposite party no.1 and on advice of the opposite party no.1 the complainant hand over the said cell to the opposite party no.2 on 29.07.2008 and the same was received by the opposite party no.2 and issued job sheet no.42943038 by 2008 the Ex.A1 dt.29.07.2008 Ex.A2 dt 31.7.2008 & Ex.A3 dt.26.09.2008 proves the same. Further, that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile unit. On account of the defect it was not rectified by the opposite party even after a lapse of 70 days inspite of several requests telephonic calls and personal visits, hence the complainant got issued a legal notice on 17.10.2008 calling upon the opposite parties to arrange cost of Nokia Mobile for Rs.11,158/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and the same was received by the opposite party and did not respond for the same. Ex. A5 is the Legal Notice, Ex.A6 is the Postal Receipts and Ex.A7 & A8 are the Postal Acknowledgement Cards prove the same. The opposite party no.1 did not place any record to rebut the same and opposite parties no.2 & 3 have failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove that there was no manufacturing defect and the complainant mis-used the said phone and there was irregular operation of the mobile set by the complainant and also failed to prove the terms and conditions of the warranty card mentioned in the counter of opposite party No.3. Hence, the Forum concludes that the complainant proved his case and he is entitle for cost of the mobile phone with compensation from the opposite parties 1 to 3.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to return the cost of Nokia Mobile – N70 Music Black Rs.11,152/- and to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

Dictated to steno-typist, transcribed by her corrected by me pronounced by us in the open forum on this the 20th day of November, 2009.