dear sir,

i was having problem with my Nokia N-95...that my handset got hangsup...sometime displays blank....and all case goes like this....
First day when I reached Nokia Care, the target delivery date given was 28/10/09 mentioned in the job sheet, after that they said software update is required and we will call or message you in 2-3 days. One week was over and they didn’t respond then I call to their LL Number mentioned in job sheet 10 times… no one received my call then I reached Nokia Care and I saw that they have not even touched my phone for repairing. They said 2 more days they will require. Again after 2 days they were not receiving my call and when I reached there they said there is Hardware problem and they are not having that spare part and asked me for more 2 days. After 2 days when I reached there they asked me to wait for more 2 hours. After 2 hours they gave me my cell and charged Rs. 1800 for flex changing and software update (refer bill). I paid happily because I thought my problem is solved but as soon as I started using my phone same problem arises not even a minor thing was resolved. I said my problem is not yet solved and I asked them to refund my money...but they said only software update is not done but they charged me for software update without updating it(Refer Bill)…this shows their irresponsibility and flex change was not even required…the technician was trying to fool me and finally he accepted that he did mistake by changing flex unnecessarily…they again asked me to wait for an hour and after that they gave my cell in Dead condition with refund…but how could I accept that, my cell was of no use…it not even starts. Then I called Centre manager Mr. Nitin and he came after an hour and he was also trying to suppress the case and misbehaved with me, he was also threatening me on the name of DEAD RISK…after arguing more than an hour he committed that he will look towards the case and assured me that cell will be OK on 12th Nov. On 12th when I reached there the centre manager was not there and when I called and asked him to come to the Centre he said “I can’t”. Now, another person Mr. Om came to picture and said that he was not aware of the case and he committed to resolve the problem by 16th Nov. On 16th he said cell has been sent to another Nokia Centre for repairing and was demanding for more Rs. 1800. Now they have crossed the Limit and they were harassing me. I told him not to repair my cell and to return the cell in initial condition with refund…he agreed and asked me to come back on 17th Nov. On 17th he gave my cell in dead condition with duplicate back panel and power switch, even my battery has been lost by them. Meanwhile I called Centre manager 20 times but he switched off his cell. After all this I called Mr. Gupta (NOKIA CARE HEAD, MAHARASTRA) and after that they were screwed up by their boss and gave me another date after 2 days....after 2 days thay gave me the cell in working condition..but when i checked whole mobile was changed even they lost my battery....but i was having no way out..rather to accept cell...they gave me the cell and i took in written an warrenty for 2 month...after one month the cell again started givivg problems...like bad camera image...keypad lights are not working..i was fed up and again i gave the cell..they asked for 5 days and took 25 days...again changed the mobile on 29-january-2010. problems faced by me:-
1) Commitment not met 8 times.
2) Don’t know how to speak to customer, threatening on the name of DEAD RISK.
3) Change of Flex without reason and technician committed that he did mistake.
4) Mobile was changed 2 times.
5) Mental/psychological harassment.
6) Original battery lost by them.
7) they did not even gave an good spare cell..

Hello,

Kindly mention your contact details, job sheet details, complaint nos. registered with the customer care and the purchase details so that we can guide you accordingly.

C.C. No. 56/2006

Thiru R. Mohanraja,

S/o. P. Ramasamy,

P.G. Palayam,

Thindamangalam Post,

Namakkal Taluk. .. Complainant.



.Vs.



1. Nokia Priority,

by its Proprietor,

224E, Main Road,

Near Manikoondu,

Namakkal Town.



2. The Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.,

Radison Hotel,

Comercing Plaza,

MH-8, Mahipalpur,

New Delhi-37. ..Opposite Parties.

This complaint coming on for final hearing before us on 12.11.2009 in the presence of Thiru M. Dineshkumar, Advocate for Complainant and the opposite party No.1 called absent set exparte and A. Umamaheshwari, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and after hearing of both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following order:
ORDER

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The crux of the complaint is:-

The complainant purchased from the 1st opposite party a mobile phone manufactured by the 2nd opposite party for Rs.10,200/- on 21.07.2005 with one year warranty. The said after 8 months developed defects i.e. key pad light is in on position even if the phone is folded and due to which the battery gets discharged and the mobile gets off. The complainant on 2903- 2006 handed over the mobile to the 1st opposite party and he was not able to set right the defects and requested to contact the manufacturer. The complainant then sent a letter to the 2nd opposite party informing the facts. The 2nd opposite party on 09.06.2006 sought various details about the mobile for taking necessary action. The complainant sent those details on 11.07.2006 but till date no action has been taken. The failure of the opposite parties either to rectify the defect or replace the same with brand new one has caused mental agony to the complainant. The complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and has lodged this complaint to direct the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile phone, compensation, cost etc.

2. The contentions of the 2nd opposite party in the written version is:- The 2nd opposite party contends that the mobile was in perfect working condition for 8 months. The defect has arose due to misuse of the mobile phone. The warranty of one year given by them is not absolute subject to exceptions. As per the exception clause the consumer shall have no coverage or benefits of warranty under this limited warranty if the produced has been subject to abnormal condition, improper storage to excessive moisture dampness, misuse, neglect etc. Hence the complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint has to be dismissed.

3. The complainant to prove his case has filed proof affidavit along with 5 documents and the same has been marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. The opposite party No.2 has filed proof affidavit without any documents.

4. The point for consideration is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the

Opposite Parties and if so to what relief the Complainant is

entitled for?


5. POINT:- The complainant purchased from the 1st opposite party a mobile phone manufactured by the 2nd opposite party for Rs.10,200/- on 21.07.2005 with one year warranty. The copy of the bill has been produced and placed before us as Ex.A1 by the complainant. The said after 8 months developed defects i.e. key pad light is in on position even if the phone is folded and due to which the battery gets discharged and the mobile gets off. The complainant on 29.03.2006 handed over the mobile to the 1st opposite party and he was not able to set right the defects and requested to contact the manufacturer. The copy of the acknowledgement given by the 1st opposite party for receiving the said for carrying out repairs has been produced and placed before us as Ex.A2 by the complainant. The complainant on instructions of the 1st opposite party then sent a lawyer notice to the 2nd opposite party informing the facts. The copy of the lawyer notice has been produced and marked as Ex.A3 by the Complainant. The 2nd opposite party on 09.06.2006 sought various details about the mobile for taking necessary action. The copy of the said communication has been produced and placed before us as Ex.A4 by the complainant. The complainant sent those details on 11.07.2006 through his lawyer but till date no action has been taken. The copy of the said communication has been produced and placed before us as Ex.A5 by the Complainant. the complainant has established by documentary evidences the purchase of mobile phone, subsequent defect and communications with manufacturer. The 2nd opposite party contends that the mobile was in perfect working condition for 8 months. This is not disputed by the complainant. The 2nd opposite party contends defect has arose due to misuse of the mobile phone. But, the 2nd opposite party has not placed before us any documentary evidence like job card or report of their Service Engineer etc. In the absence of documentary evidence to show that the defect in the mobile phone was due to misuse we are not inclined to accept the contention of the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party cannot be simply allowed to take shelter by pointing out that the warranty of one year given by them is not absolute subject to exceptions and as per the exception clause the consumer shall have no coverage or benefits of warranty under this limited warranty if the produced has been subject to abnormal condition, improper storage to excessive moisture dampness, misuse, neglect etc. We do admit that the warranty is limited and subject to certain exception like seepage of liquid, moisture mis-use etc. But the 2nd opposite party can invoke the exemptions in the warranty clause only after establishing that the defect in the mobile phone is due to the reasons stated in the exemption clause. There may be manufacturing defects also, this aspect cannot be ruled out too. The 2nd opposite party ought to have proved through documentary evidence that defect in the complainant’s mobile is due to mis-use, but the 2nd opposite party has failed to prove the same. Hence this Forum is not inclined to agree with the contentions of the opposite parties. In this circumstances we are view of the that the defects in the mobile phone of the complainant is not due to misuse, as such the opposite parties ought to have rectified the defect or must have replaced the defective mobile of the complainant with a brand new one. The opposite parties have neither set right the defects nor have replaced the defective mobile of the handset which is positively deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In view of the above discussion we have no hesitation to hold the act of opposite parties as deficiency in service. The act of the opposite parties would have definitely caused mental agony to the complainant and as such he is entitled to get compensation on this account.

6. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to replace the complainant’s defective mobile with a brand new one of the same model and to pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony suffered by him. Further the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- as cost of this complaint. Time for compliance one month from the date of this order.

Pronounced by us in Open Forum, this the 26th day of November,2009.

I'm HARSH VARDHAN AGRAWAL a student from Raniganj,West Bengal.I have a nokia
5610 whose end key suddenly stopped working.I gave it to nokia care asansol
and they said that a flexicable has to be changed after which it will be
repaired and the set will work perfectly & be okay.They returned the mobile
after 1/2 months or so with a bill of rupees 1600 which I paid and then I
started facing the same problem & this time with the
clear key also.The problem started in just 2-3 days after it was returned.I
gave the mobile back to nokia care asansol.This time they returned the
mobile after two months and they say that it cannot be repaired and i have
to change the flexicable again exhausting rupees 1600 again.If this is so
why do nokia asks its customers to buy genuine nokia accessories?
The flexicable was available outside for much lesser cost but I sticked to
nokia and thereby want the company to stand by my side.Please check into the
matter.

thanks with regards.


My contact number +919832288456

Complaint case No. 76/2009 Date of disposal: 30/12/2009

BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT : Mr. P. K. Sarkar.

MEMBER : Mr. S. Pal.

MEMBER : ********** For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Self.

For the Defendant/O.P.S. : Mr. P. Sengupta & Mr. K. Mishra.

(1) Shri Prasenjit Pal C/o- Mrityunjoy Pal, Vill & P.O.-Benai, P.S.- Daspur, Dist Paschim Medinipur………….Complainant.

Vs.

1) M/S-Madanmohan Telecom, Main Road, Jhargram, Dist-Paschim Medinipur.

2) M/S-Mobile India, Kharida, Malancha Road, Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur.

3) The Care Manager, Nikia India Pvt. Ltd., 4F, Tower A & B, Cybergreen DLF Cyber city, Sector-25A, Gurgaon-122002………………….……………..Ops.

The Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows :-

The complainant purchased a Nokia 2626 Mobile phone from the Op. no.1 on 26/03/2008 for Rs.2,500/- and after using the mobile phone for some time he observed that battery back up time of the mobile phone was much less than the other mobile phone of the same brand. The complainant reported the problem to Op. no.1 and as per advice of the Op. no.1 the complainant used another battery of the same brand but the problem remained the same. Subsequently on 05/01/2009 the complainant handed over the mobile phone to the Op. no.1 for removal of the defect and the Op. no.1 assured the complainant to return the mobile after a week after repairing the same by the authorized Nokia Centre. Thereafter the Op. no.1 deferred the date of delivery of the mobile phone to the complainant and finally on 21/01/2009 returned the mobile phone to the complainant. Again after using the mobile phone for few days the complainant found that the battery problem remained the same and as such he again handed over the mobile phone to the Op.no.1 on 26/01/2009 to repair the same through the Nokia Care Centre and the Op. no1 returned the mobile phone to the complainant on 28/02/09 again harassing him for long time for the same. The problem of the back up time of the battery remained the same. Then the complainant lodged a written complaint in the matter to the Assistant Director, Consumer

Contd………….P/2

- ( 2 ) -

Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Paschim Medinipur on 23/02/09 and on the intervention of one of the officers of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Paschim Medinipur, the Op no.1 advised that the complainant might approach the Nokia Care Mobile India, Kharida, Malancha Road for removal of the defect of the mobile phone and accordingly on 06/03/09 the complainant himself deposited the mobile phone with Nokia Care Mobile India, the Op. no.2, for removal of the defect. Subsequently the complainant took delivery of the mobile phone from the Op. no.2 on 16/03/09 but the problem of battery back up time was found to have not been solved or removed. Subsequently the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Paschim Medinipur, arranged a meeting in the chamber of S.D.O., Jhargram on 28/07/09 to resolve the problem and after hearing the submissions of both sides the S.D.O., Jhargram advised the Op. no.1 to replace the mobile phone of the complainant or refund the price thereof to the complainant but the Op. no.2 did not pay any heed to such advise and as such the complainant filed the instant complaint for deficiency on the part of the Ops. with prayer for issuance of directions upon them to refund of the price of the mobile phone in question with interest thereon and to pay compensation for harassment and mental agony and to pay litigation cost to the complainant.

The Op. no. 2 & 3 contested the case by filing their written objection separately. The Op. no.3 contended, interalia, that as per limited warranty clause they were liable to repair the hand set in question free of charge within one year from the date of its purchase and only in exceptional circumstances, as mentioned in clause 7 of the manual where the hand set is not repairable due to non-availability of spare parts, to replace the hand set with the same model and that there was warranty for six months for the battery of the hand set and that the complainant complained of the defective battery of the hand set long after expiry of six months and as such the Op. no.3 is not liable for the alleged defect in the battery of the hand set purchased by him and that the Op. no.3 thorough their Customer Care network helped the complainant to mitigate his hardship by repairing the hand set without charging any amount and that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the instant case against them.

The Op. no.1 contended, interalia, that in the 1st week of January,2009 the complainant came to their shop and complained about the back up period of the battery of the Nokia Mobile .2626 purchased by him on 26/03/2008 from them. As requested by the complainant the battery of the mobile set was replaced by a new one and when again the complainant made similar complaint they arranged for repairing the hand set and returned the same to the complainant in O. K. condition and that when the complainant again complained of similar problem in the battery of the mobile set, the Op. no.1 helped him to rectify the problem by referring the same to

Contd………….P/3
- ( 3 ) -

the Nokia Care Service Centre Mobile India, Kharida-Malancha Road and that after sometime the complainant again came to their shop and created pressure upon them to replace the mobile set with a new one and as they refused to replace the mobile set with a new one the complainant filed the instant case on false and frivolous grounds for wrongful gain. According to Op. no.1 there was no deficiency in service on their part as alleged by the complainant. As such, the complaint filed against them is liable to be dismissed.

The points for decisions are :

1) Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the section 2 (i) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 ?

2) Whether the Ops. are deficient in service within the meaning of section 2 (1)(g) read with section 2(1)(0) of the C. P. Act, 1986 ?

3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as sought for ?

Decisions with reasons :

Point No. 1.

Admittedly the complainant purchased one Nokia Mobile Phone Set (Model no.2626 black) from Op.no.1 on 26/03/2008 for Rs.2,500/-. The complainant filed this case against the Op.no.1, the Op. no. 3, the manufacturer of the set and their service centre i.e. the Op. no.2 , alleging that the back up time of the battery of the said mobile phone was much less than other Nokia mobile phone of same brand and the Ops. failed to rectify the defect in the said mobile phone within the warranty period from the date of its purchase, with prayer for issuance of direction upon the Ops. to replace the mobile set by a new one or to refund the price thereof. As such, the complainant must be held to be consumer of the Ops. within the meaning of section 2 (i) (d) (i) read with section 2(1)(g) & 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Point Nos.2 & 3.

As per complaint, the only grievance of the complainant was that the back up time of the battery of the Nokia Mobile set (model no.2626) purchased by him was much less than the other mobile set of same model. The complainant has failed to assert what is the normal back up time of the battery of Nokia mobile set of Model no.2626 though he has admitted in his complaint that he was required to charge the battery at the interval of 18/20 hours, suggesting that the back up period of the battery of the said mobile set was about 18/20 hours. In absence of any evidence to prove that the back up period of the battery of Nokia 2626 hand set was much more than 18/20 hours, as contended by the complainant, the complaint regarding the same appears to be vague and baseless. It may be noted the battery back up period of the mobile set depends upon its use and as such the same is variable one.

Contd………….P/4





- ( 4 ) -

It transpired from the manual of Nokia 2626 mobile set filed by the complainant that the manufacturer i.e. the Op. no.3, provided warranty for proper functioning of the battery of the set for a period of six months from the date of its purchase. So, the manufacturer, the Op. no.3 was liable to repair or replace the battery of the mobile set through their customer care center within six months from the date of its purchase. Admittedly the complainant purchased the Nokia mobile set on 26/03/2008 and deposited the set to the Op. no.1 on 05/01/2009 to repair the alleged mal-functioning of the battery of the set through the Nokia customer care centre. So, it transpired that the complainant did not make any complaint regarding the mal-functioning of the battery of the mobile set in question within the warranty period of the battery of the same i.e within six months from the date of its purchase. So the liability of the Ops in the matter of the alleged defects in the battery of the mobile set in question ceased after expiry of the warranty period of six months from the date of its purchase

The service job sheet filed by the complainant disclosed that the customer care center of the manufacturer of the mobile set in question, the Op no.2, removed the alleged mal-functioning of the battery of the mobile set to the satisfaction of the complainant and delivered the same, sometimes in March 09. The claim of the complainant that he was compelled to sign the job sheet recording his satisfaction, hardly believable in absence any cogent reason for the same particularly when the Op no.2 rendered the service free of cost long after the expiry of the warranty period.

In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Hence,

it is ordered

that the complaint be dismissed on contest. The parties do bear their respective costs.

Let the copies of the judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost.

Dic. & Corrected by m

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 55/S/2008. DATED : 03.12.2009.
BEFORE PRESIDENT : SMT. ANITA DEBNATH,

President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri

Ex-Member of W.B. Higher Judicial Services and

Addl. Dist. & Session Judge.

MEMBER : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARJEE

&

SRI ASIT RANJAN DAS



COMPLAINANT : SRI KAMALESH KUMAR CHOWDHURY,

S/O G. N. Chowdhury,

2nd Floor, 59 Baghajatin Road,

Opp. Rabindra Manch, Siliguri,

Dist.- Darjeeling.


O.Ps. 1) : M/S NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD.,

5F Tower A & B, Cybergreen,

DLF-Phase – 3, Cybergreen, Cyber City,

Sector 25A, Gurgaon – 122 002 (Haryana).



2) : M/S NOKIA CARE, SHANTI TELE SOLUTIONS,

spectrum House, Sevoke Road,

Siliguri – 734 001, Dist. – Darjeeling.



3) : SRI SWASTIK TRADERS,

Station Feeder Road,

Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Sri S. K. Mitruka, Advocate.



FOR THE OP No.1 : Sampita (Sanyal) Sarkar, Advocate.
J U D G E M E N T

This is a case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for repairing the mobile handset or alternatively to pay a sum of Rs.7,050/- together with interest and compensation.

The case of the complainant runs as follows :-

The complainant purchased one mobile hand set being IMEI No.353780008371445



Contd…….P/2

-:2:-



under Model NOKIA 3220 at Rs.6,3000/- on 12.09.05. On 01.11.07 mobile handset got some problems for which the same was handed over to the OP No.3 for repairing on payment basis. Subsequently, the said OP No.3 returned the mobile handset on repairing at the cost of Rs.750/-. On 16.05.08 the said mobile handset started to give some problems and it was duly intimated to the OP No.3 who in-turn requested to contact the OP No.2 and accordingly, the said mobile handset was handed over to the OP No.2 for removing the defects. But the said mobile handset did not return to the complainant after its removal of defects for a long time. As a result of which the complainant issued a letter dated 09.06.08 requesting to return mobile handset after its repairing. Then the OP No.2 in reply dated 17.06.08 intimated that the mobile handset is not repairable. On receiving such intimation it is not understandable as to why the said mobile handset would not be repaired under any circumstances. So, another letter dated 08.07.08 was issued to the OP No.2 with a request about the reason or the nature of defect as found by the OP No.2 at the time of repairing. Due to no work problem in April/May’08 it was deposited for removal of the defect to the OP No.2. But no reply was received from the OP No.2. Inaction on the part of the OPs it amounts to non-performance of the work and shortcoming of services thereby it also amounts to deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the OPs without any fault on his part. Thereby the complainant sustains a loss to the tune of Rs.7,050/- due to the value of the said mobile set and repairing charges. Hence this case for a new mobile handset alternatively refund of the purchase value including the repairing charges and for compensation.

The said complaint has been filed supported by affidavit.

The complainant by way of amendment of complaint dated 20.05.09 introduced certain facts to that effect that after receiving the notice in connection with the instant case the OP No.2 made a verbal proposal for providing a new mobile handset to the complainant in lieu of the earlier one and accordingly, the complainant agreed and accepted the proposal as made by the OP No.2 who then provided another mobile handset being NOKIA Model 6300 bearing IMEI No.359347023067715 in lieu of the old one under Model No.3220 with a warranty for a period of one year. Accordingly, on 20.04.09 as the complainant already received another mobile handset in lieu of the old one he was agreed for not to proceed with the instant case and issued a letter dated 20.04.09 in favour of the OP No.2. But subsequently, after a few days again the complainant faced much trouble with regard to the said mew mobile handset and found defective as a result of which the complainant had to withdraw his said letter dated



Contd…….P/3

-:3:-



20.04.09 by writing the letter dated 11.05.09 and the said mobile handset with all accessories were returned to the OP No.2 on 18.05.09 through his representative.

In this way the OP No.2 tried to give the defective mobile set in order to avoid the instant case. Such action on the part of the OP No.2 is illegal and wrongful gain having no fault on the part of the complainant. So, the OPs are to be penalized for their deficiency and negligence activities harassing the complainant to enjoy the facility.

The OP No.1 contested the case by putting W/V denying each and every allegation as made therein with a specific defence that the complaint is not maintainable.

It has been further alleged that the complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence to support his allegation of defect in the handset. Due to mis-use of the mobile phone the OP can not be held responsible for the careless and negligence handling of the mobile phone. It is specifically pleaded the service so offered under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act as the services that are provided to handset under limited warranty coverage. It is further alleged that warranty period for one year from the date of purchase has already been expired on 12.09.06. The complainant has violated the terms of warranty by getting the handset repaired from the retailer who is not an Authorized Service Centre of the answering OP. The OP No.3 is not the Authorized Service Centre of the OP No.1 thereby the complainant has violated the terms of warranty for which the OP No.1 is not liable to provide the further sale service to the complainant. As the complainant has violated the terms of the warranty the OP No.2 accordingly informed that the said mobile set can not be repaired under any such circumstances and as such the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

The said Written Version has been furnished supported by affidavit.

Upon consideration of the pleadings of the respective parties the following issues are framed for adjudication :-

1. Is the case maintainable ?

2. Is there any deficiency or Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the OPs ?

3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

4. To what other relief/reliefs as prayed for ?



Point No.1



The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the OP urged that the proper relief in the instant case filed by the complainant is in Civil Court having jurisdiction thereon as complicated questions of law and voluminous evidence coupled with documents are required to be considered. It has further been urged that the complainant despite receiving a new



Contd…….P/4

-:4:-



handset and withdrew the case by a letter in favour of the OP No.2 thereby the complainant has no cause of action for sue and by way of incorporation of alleged fact of delivery of a new mobile set by of amendment of complaint new cause of action arises for which the instant case is not maintainable.

Admittedly, the complainant purchased one NOKIA mobile handset at a sum of Rs.6,300/- on 12.09.05 with warranty. The Job Sheet dated 01.11.07 issued by Sri Swastik traders/The OP No.3 it reveals that service was rendered for repairing the said mobile handset on consideration. Subsequently, within a short period the same got defect. Now the question is whether the complainant can be considered as Consumer.

Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration. So, it is apparent that service was hired or availed of on consideration thereby the complainant’s case comes within the purview of Consumer. The nature of the dispute one’s assertion of defect or denial of service for repairing the mobile set concern and denied by the other in the manner that it can not be repaired under any such circumstances without assigning any reason thereof such type of denial and the controversy involved in the instant case obviously comes within the ambit of Consumer Dispute as provided under Section 2(1)(e) of the said Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Whether service has been rendered or denied it relates with the merits of the case which will be considered later on. But in this count when consumer dispute allegedly exists the case is quite maintainable.

Another point has been raised that the relief of the complainant lies otherwise than that of this Forum and Civil Court is proper Court where remedy for getting such relief as prayed for lies.

Section 13 of the said Act, 1986 show beyond dout that the statute does not contemplate the determination of complicated issues of fact involving taking of elaborate oral evidence and adducing of voluminous documentary evidence and a detailed security and assessment of such evidence. The Forum constitute under the Act are vested with the power to examine witness on oath and to order discovery and production of document. But such power is to be exercised in cases where the issues involved are simple such as defective quality of any goods purchased or shortcomings or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of a service which the Respondent has contracted to perform for consideration.

In the instant case question of shortcoming of performance and quality of service has been raised. Thereby this Forum does not feel so complicated in nature for which it requires to be sent to the Civil Court for its decision.



Contd…….P/5

-:5:-



So, the objection as raised does not justify to return the case on such defence as stated hereinbefore.

Therefore, the case is quite maintainable in this regard.

Thus, the point is decided in favour of the complainant and as such it is disposed of.

Point No.2 – 4.



Sole objection raised by the OP No.1 is that the complainant has violated the terms of the warranty and misused the sophisticated electronic equipment and it has already been pointed it out tampered in the Job Voucher and it has been repaired from the retailer who is not an Authorized Service Centre and thereby the claim as sought for is not entertainable. It has been urged by the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the O No.1 though the said mobile handset was dead and it is/was subject to technical verification for liquid logged and tampering of handset and from the Job Sheet it is crystal clear that the mobile handset handed over to the OP No.3 for repairing and thereby it can be presumed that the said handset became defective after elapse of warranty period for which the OP No.1 is not liable for any inconvenience allegedly caused by the complainant.

It has been further argued that limited warranty period does not cover normal wear and tear including without limitation wear and tear of camera, lenses, batteries and Display’s transport caused, defects caused by rough handling including without limitation, defect caused by such item by bending, compressing or dropping etc. defects or damages caused by mis-uses of the product including the use contrary to the instruction provided by NOKIA, others act beyond reasonable control of India. It has been further urged that the complainant brought the new facts only to repairing his own wrongs which was committed by him by tampering the said mobile handset and to claim the remedy after the elapse of warranty period. So, there is clear intention to malign the reputation of the OP No.1 to the esteem of the public and purchasers thereof. It has been further argued during the warranty period no defect or problem was faced by the complainant and it has been arisen allegedly after the warranty period. Therefore, the complainant does not come within the purview of definition consumer and/or deficiency of service as alleged.

The complainant in support of his contention has filed original Tax Invoice dated 12.09.05 from which it reveals that the NOKIA mobile handset under Model No.3220 was purchased on 12.09.05 from Smart Infosystem.

Service Job Sheet dated 01.11.07 issued by M/S Swastik Traders /The OP No.3 it



Contd…….P/6

-:6:-



reveals that the said mobile handset bearing No.353780008371445 was placed with the OP No.3 for repairing the same by the complaint on the power does not ‘switch on’ and made comment as dead. Ultimately, the said mobile set was delivered on 07.11.07 on receiving charge of Rs.750/- paid by the complainant.

The letter dated 01.11.07 goes to show that the complainant requested the NOKIA Service Centre for check up properly the mobile handset as problem has been cropped up despite attending by the service person at the service centre shortly and deposited the same on 01.11.07 and the same was delivered on 07.11.07 as stated above.

Letter dated 09.06.08 issued by the complainant to the Shanti Tele Solutions/The OP No.2 for delivery of the said NOKIA set after its repairing with a threat of legal action.

Letter dated 17.06.08 issued by the said Nokia Care Shanti Tele Solutions intimated that the aforesaid NOKIA 3220 is not repairable under any circumstances with a request to collect the handset from their centre at his own convenience. Subsequently, legal notice was sent by the complainant dated 08.07.08 by Registered Post with AD.

Documents dated 18.05.09 which bears the customer and Engineers Signature goes to show that IMEI No.359347023067715 along with Box pack handset with full accessories was returned by the complainant and received by the OP No.2 with the allegation of theme selection problem (not enough memory).

Computerized copy received through On Line goes to show that the said return mobile handset bearing IMEI No.359347023067715 that the warranty period has been extended till the end of 27.02.2010.

The letter dated 11.05.09 issued by Kamalesh Kr. Chowdhury/the Complainant goes to show that the letter dated 20.04.09 as issued has been withdrawn on the plea that the handset Model No.6300 is giving problem.

Letter dated 20.04.09 issued by the complainant goes to show that about the receiving of one new mobile handset under Model No.6300 in lieu of the earlier handset during pendency of the instant case and thereby he will not proceed further the case filed by him.

So, from the case of the respective parties it is an admitted position that the complainant initially purchased a mobile handset under Model No.3220 on 12.09.05.

Admittedly, first trouble was faced on 01.11.07 and the same was repaired at the cost of Rs.750/- through the OP No.3.

Admittedly, warranty period for the Model No.3220 was then expired.

Admittedly, the said mobile set under Model No.3220 was again deposited to the OP No.2 on 16.05.08 and there is a remark as tampered.

Contd…….P/7

-:7:-



Admittedly, the OP No.2 communicated the complainant with the remark that the said mobile set under Model No.3220 is not repairable under any circumstances. Such comment gives rise to the instant case after service of legal notice.

The ld. Advocate on behalf of the complainant urged that the mobile handset is a precious handset worth of Rs.6,300/- and the same was repaired at the cost of Rs.750/-.

From the complaint as amended coupled with documents it further reveals that a new mobile set under model No.6300 was handed over to the complainant by the OP No.2 during pendency of the instant case. The document speaks as reflected above that the said mobile set along with all accessories were returned to the OP No.2 with the allegation of defect as reflected therein. Now the OP No.1 advanced argument even through Written Argument it has been stated that it is not within the knowledge of the OP No.1 and thereby they have no liability to compensate as prayed for.

Be it mentioned here the OPs No.2 & 3 did not come forward to deny the case of the complainant as incorporated by way of amendment of complaint or the case under the original complaint.

The complainant led evidence supported by affidavit and he was cross examined. Even one Miss. Priti Verma led evidence on behalf of the OP No.2 and categorically stated about the misuse of the said mobile set. Several questionnaires in order to cross examination of the witness concerned was submitted on behalf of the complainant on 16.10.09. But no reply has been received there from.

Under the law when no opportunity has been received by the complainant to cross-examine the witness concerned as deposed on behalf of the OP No.2 who does not appear or take any proper steps such evidence bears no evidentiary value and the same was expunged vide Order dated 11.11.09.

Be it mentioned here that the OPs did not furnish additional W/V despite getting opportunity against the amendment as made by the complainant. Thereby the case of the complainant as amended remains unshaken and/or uncontroverted.

The question is whether the case becomes fatal by issuing letter of withdrawal dated 20.04.08 made by the complainant in favour of the OP No.2. It has already been reflected hereinbefore that the OP No.2 & 3 did not appear in the instant case denying the case of the complainant or handed over a new set of mobile. The OP No.1 or OP No.2 despite receiving the said letter of withdrawal from the end of the complainant did not come forward to enforce the said letter bringing for dismissal of the case on the ground as stated therein. Putting such letter and without enforcing the same through court of law this Forum does not put any cognigence upon the said letter.



Contd…….P/8

-:8:-



The second phase as incorporated by way of amendment of complaint has not been denied by the OP No.2 or any other OPs thereby such case remains uncontroverted. More so, document speaks that new mobile set under Model No.6300 was returned to the OP No.2 on the plea of defect as noted therein and the same was received by the OP No.2 on proper receipt and there is no denial in this regard. It is a continuous process by issuing of second mobile set based upon the case of the complainant. Thereby no new cause of action has been arisen. Further, on careful consideration of the case of the complainant and the OP No.1 coupled with the activities of the OP No.2 & 3 who did not turn up after receiving notice has come forward to say anything against the case of the complainant and in order to get rid of allegation as made by the complainant supplied a second one under Model No.6330 thereby the complainant was trapped by issuing the said mobile set so that the complainant can not proceed with the instant case and such activities on the part of the OP sole intention is to destroy or frustrate the case of the complainant.

It is pertinent to mention here the OP No.1 is the manufacturer of the mobile set and OP No.2 is the Authorized Service Centre and OP No.3 also Authorize Service Centre there is specific mention in the Job Voucher as ‘ASC’. Even then OP No.1 denied recognizing the OP No.3 as their Authorize Service Agent. All the subsequent attempts as made by the OP No.2 by handing over a new set under Model No.6300 their sole intention is to destruct the case of the complainant and the nature of temper as alleged has not categorically stated by the OP No.1 and the OP No.2 did not come forward to state what type of tempering was detected for which such type of comment was made. Mere pleading is no proof it requires to be proved by cogent, documentary and oral evidence. By surmise and conjecture it can not be said that the said mobile set was mis-used by the complainant resultant with it got tempered. Until and unless it has been proved by cogent, evidence such defence bears no evidentiary value.

Considering all the facts and circumstances, we reach to our conclusion that OPs have failed to establish that the nature of alleged tempering and/or misuse handling by cogent evidence. Further we are of the view that no reason has been assigned by the OP No.2 denial the claim of the complainant as to why the mobile set can not be repairable. When the OP No.1 is the manufacturer and OP No.2 is the Authorized Service Centre they are quite aware about the make even if it may be sophisticated electronics equipment.

Considering all the facts and circumstances, when service was rendered on consideration even though warranty period was over and subsequently extended by



Contd…….P/9

-:9:-



delivery of second mobile set which was ultimately found defective and returned thereof and it has not been challenged by cogent evidence as there was no such defect in the new mobile set thereby their sole intention is to destruct the case of the complainant and such activities obviously comes within the purview of deficiency of service and negligence on their part in terms of the definition as provided under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Further the nature of denial clearly goes to show it caused harassment, mental pain and agony to the complainant and no consumer can be denied to get their service through the manufacturer/service Agent in the fashion as made by the OPs. Therefore, the complainant is also entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs.2,000/-.

Since both the mobile sets old and new one are lying with the OPs and it has not been changed by issuing alternative one we are of the view it is fit case to allow the complainant’s alternative prayer amounting to Rs.7,050/- inclusive of service charge of Rs.750/- from the Opposite Parties considering the shortcoming performance on the part of the Opposite Parties.

Therefore, the points are decided in favour of the complainant.

In the result, the case succeeds in part.

Hence, it is,

O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.55/S/2009 is allowed on contest against the OP No.1 and Exparte against the OP No.2 & 3 with cost of Rs.1,000/-.

The complainant is entitled to get decree for Rs.7,050/- (Seven Thousand Fifty) only from the OPs who are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded sum.

The complainant is further entitled to get a compensation of Rs.2,000/-.

The OPs who are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of Rs.7,050/- (Seven Thousand Fifty) only within 45 days from the date hereof failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the instant case dated 22.09.2008 till the date of realization of the entire sum.

The OPs who are jointly and severally liable are further directed to pay the compensation amount as awarded herein before within the stipulated period.

In case of default the complainant is at liberty to put the decree in execution.

Let Xerox copies of this Judgement and Order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

sir i have n78 with warrenty . my phone was hanging so i got it formated with nokia
care borivli , when i recd mobile its keypad was slitely loose so i told thr
officials about it and they told me to wait for 1 hr and then they opened my mobile
once again and did something and gave it to me saying it was absolutely fine. now
a month later my mobile was having leftside ringer(keypad module) problem and so i
gave it to them they said that my mobile was sticked by some one and can not be
taken as in warrety and i have to pay 1550 rs to get it done. wen i said that my
mobile has been opened by your guys only one month ago , and showed them jobsheet
also he said he will not consider it and i have to pay money else he will not do
work . please help

Hi,

I wanted to file a complaint against Nokia. I purchased a Nokia N79 on 1st Dec 2008
(with a valid receipt) from Dombivli (Maharashtra), but with in a year it started
giving me a problem, I submitted the handset to Nokia Care center in Dombivli
(Unique Telecom), they repaired the handset and returned me back after 15 days (this
what happned in March), then agian I submitted my handset to Nokia Care center two
times for same reason, and still my handet is with them for last 1 month.
I wanted to file a complaint against Nokia Care center for providing me a poor
quality of Mobile Handset, and poorest quality of after sales service, and repair
service.
Could you please help me out in this matter? I have all the evidance with me to
proove that Handset is faulty.

Regards,
Sameer Kamble.

consumer case(CC) No. 186/2002

E.Firoz
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

Proprietor
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Smt. Beena Kumari. A
2. Smt. S.K.Sreela
3. Sri G. Sivaprasad


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 186/2002 Filed on 02.05.2002

Dated : 15.12.2009

Complainant:

E. Firoz, T.C 4/1709(2), Keerthi Lane South End, Opposite Radio Station, Manvila Engineering College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram- 16.

(By adv. M. Abdul Hameed)

Opposite party:

The Proprietor, A.S. Mobile Care, (A unit of Half a Mobile), Kochulloor, Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. S. Chandra Mohan Nair)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 11.11.2003, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 07.10.2009, the Forum on 15.12.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant had entrusted his Nokia 3310 type mobile phone for repair to the opposite party on 06.02.2002 and a receipt for the same had been issued to him. The opposite party assured the complainant that the phone will be returned within a week. But the opposite party till date did not return the phone to the complainant. The complainant made several requests to the opposite party to hand over the repaired phone. All his requests and demands became futile. Hence this complaint.

The opposite party, A.S. Mobile Care filed detailed version contending the entire allegations put forwarded by the complainant. In the version they stated that they had handed over the repaired mobile phone to the complainant without getting back the receipt and repair charge. The complainant had assured that he would search out the receipt and will hand over the same along with the repair charge of Rs. 500/- within 2 days and it was believing the complainant that the mobile phone was handed over to him without receipt and repair charges. But even after a month the complainant did not care to pay the repair charges. At last opposite party contacted the Superior Officer of the complainant and requested him to direct the complainant to pay the service charges to the opposite party. Aggrieved by the act of the opposite party, complainant came to the shop of the opposite party on 02.05.2002 and in the presence of the customers of the opposite party, complainant had abused and threatened the opposite party and it was also told that he would teach the opposite party a lesson for having contacted the Superior Officer for getting the service charges. Thereafter complainant filed a false and vexatious complaint against the opposite party before this Forum. The opposite party further submitted that on getting notice from this Forum, opposite party had made enquiries regarding the mobile phone and came to know that the complainant had given the phone on 02.05.2002 itself to another shop called “Cell Home”situated near the Muthoot Plaza, alleging net work complaint. The copy of the receipt issued to him on 02.05.2002 by Cell Home is produced along with the version. The opposite party submitted that the complainant had approached this Forum with unclean hands and the complaint is false, vexatious and is filed on an experimental basis. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs.

In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Nobody has cross examined him. He has produced a document which is marked as Ext. P1. The opposite party has also produced a document as Ext. D1.

Issues that would arise for consideration are:-

1.

Whether there has been deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?
2.

Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?

Points (i) & (ii):- To prove his contentions the complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced one document. The document marked as Ext. P1 is the receipt issued by the opposite party at the time of entrusting the phone to the opposite party for repairing i.e on 06.02.2002. Through this document the complainant proved the transaction. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence to show that they had returned the mobile phone to the complainant. The opposite party has produced a document as Ext. D1, the job card issued by the Cell Home in the name of the complainant. In that document, the model No. of the mobile phone is the same number as that of the disputed phone. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant had given the same phone for repairing to the Cell Home. But the opposite party has not adduced sufficient evidence to support that contention. Hence we find that the allegation put forward by the opposite party is not true. Moreover in this case the affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. From the above mentioned discussions and available evidence we are of the opinion that the complaint is to be allowed. In this case the complainant has no evidence to prove the price of the mobile phone.

In the result, the opposite party is directed to hand over the mobile phone of the complainant (Nokia Model 3310) to the complainant or to give a same model phone or its price to the complainant. The opposite party shall also pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of this order otherwise 12% annual interest shall be paid to the entire amount.

COMPLAINT NO.2034 OF 2009

Badrinath L,

#001, 310, GF, 4th Cross,

Jayanagar, 1st Block, Near

Ashoka Pillar, Bangalore – 11,

…. Complainant.

V/s



01. Mahesh,

Transcell Solutions and services

Nokia Priority dealer NPBG22,

#27/44, 9th Main, Jayanagar,

3rd Block, Bangalore – 11.



02. Sunil Derasariya,

Nokia Care Centre,

#199 F, 27th Cross, 7th B Main

Road, 1st Floor, 3rd Block,

Above Niligiris, Jayangar,

Banglaore.

…. Opposite Parties

-: ORDER:-

This complaint is for a direction to the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.20,000/- paid for the Mobile Handset and to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.

2. The case of the complainant is as under:-

On 02/03/2009 the complainant purchased NOKIA E-71 Mobile Handset from Opposite Party No.1. Right from the beginning he had problem with the phone and it stopped functioning after two months. Upon consultation with Opposite Party No.1, he was directed to approach Nokia Authorized Service Centre at Jayanagar, 4th Block. He delivered the phone for service to the service center and he was provided with the service job sheet dated 22/07/2009 promising to return the Mobile Phone within three days. He did not receive a call from the service centre even on 3rd day. Therefore when he contacted the service center on the same evening, he was informed that the handset would be sent to Gurgaon and he would receive a brand new E-71 handset as the handset purchased by him had manufacturing defect. He was informed that the new phone would take 10 days to arrive and in the interim, he was provided with replacement phone E-51 which does not have certain key functionalities that the E-71 has. Therefore, he returned the replacement phone back to the service center due to the inconvenience he experienced. About 15 days thereafter he was given refurbished (not new) E-71 device in a different colour (silver). When questioned whey he was given a refurbished phone, the service center did not give proper answer. He was asked to wait for another 10 days to get E-71 black colour phone. But the same was not done till the date of complaint. Hence, the complaint.

3. In spite of service of notice, Opposite Party No.1 – the dealer from whom the complainant had purchased the Mobile Handset has remained absent. Opposite Party No.2 – the service center has resisted the claim on the following grounds:-

E-71 Handset was received by them on 21/07/2009 from the complainant for repairs. The problem reported by the customer was “Key not working” and phone hangs. They informed the complainant that the data cannot be saved. The customer approved and signed the job sheet. They had done the software upgraded and given back the handset to the customer in good working condition. But again on 22/07/2009 the customer came back with the same problem “Key not working properly”. The Handset was taken for repairs and the complainant was informed that the problem is repeating (later failure) so the handset will be sent to the Backend support Level-3 center and it will take 15 days. They provided the standby Handset (E-50) to the customer for his business needs. They received swap handset from IMC (level 3) center, the handset was silver colour. Therefore, the customer did not approve as he required black colour. Therefore they again reissued the handset back and received another handset in black colour and the same was informed to the customer. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on their part and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. In support of the claim, the complainant has filed his affidavit. Except filing the version, Opposite Party No.2 has not adduced the evidence. When the matter came up for arguments also the Opposite Party No.2 remained absent. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.

5. The points for consideration are:-



1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6. Our finding to both the points is in the Negative for the following:-



-:REASONS:-

7. From the copy of the invoice issued by Opposite Party No.1 it is seen that the complainant purchased handset on 02/03/2009 for Rs.20,000/- including VAT. The fact that the complainant handed over the Handset to Opposite Party No.2 on 22/07/2009 is admitted. After handing over the Handset on 22/07/2009 the complaint is filed on 24/08/2009 in about one month and two days thereafter. It is also admitted that after taking back the defective handset from the complainant on 22/07/2009, Opposite Party No.2 sent the handset to Level-3 center seeking replacement due to the manufacturing defects in the handset purchased by the complainant and got the replacement of the said handset with another handset of silver colour. It appears the complainant insisted for handset of black colour and therefore Opposite Party No.2 informed the complainant to wait for another 15 days. In the version, it is contended by Opposite Party No.2 that they sent back the silver colour handset and after they received the handset of black colour, the same was informed to the customer. If that is so, the handset of the colour required by the complainant in replacement of the earlier one is available with Opposite Party No.2. Without approaching Opposite Party No.2 and receiving the handset of black colour, the complainant appears to have approached this Forum. In case of manufacturing defect in a product purchased, the customer has to approach the manufacturer of the product. In this case, the complainant is filed against Opposite Party No.1 – the dealer from whom the complainant had purchased the handset and Opposite Party No.2 – the service center. The manufacturer of the handset is not impleaded as party to the proceedings. When Opposite Party No.2 provided proper service and got replacement of the handset with a new one as promised, the complainant cannot allege deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2. When the defective handset was required to be sent to the manufacturer or to the higher level service center, it takes some time to get back new handset in place of the earlier one. It was necessary for the complainant to give some reasonable time to Opposite Party to get a new handset from higher level service center or from the manufacturer. When the complainant has filed the complaint within about one month after handing over the handset to Opposite Party No.2, it only indicates that the complainant did not give reasonable time to Opposite Party No.2 to get replacement of the handset with new one from the manufacturer and as such we are unable to make out any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2 and hold that the complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for. The complainant is at liberty to receive the handset which is now available with Opposite Party No.2. In the result, we pass the following:-

-:ORDER:-
1. The complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

2. The complainant is at liberty to receive the Black Colour Handset from Opposite Party No.2

3. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

4. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 16th Day of DECEMBER 2009.

Sir,

SUB:your hoteline exe says, " we ve serviced your handset again. either you take it back and try is it working , or do what ever you want to"-----------wat a customer service?.


I have purachased a nokia-3110c [351963038848010] from a nokia dealer ( MOBILE STORES, ASHOK NAGAR, CHENNAI-INDIA) on 3 JUN, 2009.
But by December , one day It switched off automatically and didnt on. I thought it may be a software problem so i went to nokia care( ROYAPETTAH, NEAR SATYAM THEATRE-chennai). They told me it was a software problem, they format it and gave back to me after re loading the software, but i lost all my contacts .
after some days [around a month time]same problem appears, screen goes white.by itself and none of the key works. It switches on but just a plain white color lit. This time, I SAID, I WANT THE CONTACTS MORE IMPORTANTLY THAN THE HANDSET, BUT THE CUSTOMER CARE [?] executive told me again it was a software problem again and once again i got to loose all the contact, just in span of 30 plus days.. .
On top of it, it was told that it has been sent to head office, to satisfy me, but by eve some body clled from the service centre, stating that it s made ready.
I dont know whom to beleive.
Now i m getting fedup with mobile and your service. Please look after the matter and do the needful. It already killed my lots of time. This time i just want a OK handset otherwise i will go for some other actions.
I can provide my job sheet numbers and other relevant details incase you want, as mine is under warranty and the handset is very much with your service centre only.

The worst part of the episode was how the customer care excutive spoke to me over the phone, which i beleive is recorded and can be heard. i called on 16th feb, around 1 pm and earlier on 12th feb. out of two, one lade was ms. catherine [thats the name they said]

hope you ll do some justification for the time and the contacts and the money i lost.



THE DETAILS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1) Reconfirming the location and complete address of the Nokia Service Centre (where the handset is submitted) ROCKY AGENCIES, 32, THRIU VI KA ROAD, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI 14, INDIA.


2) IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identifier)/Serial number of the mobile phone
35196303848010
3) Latest Job slip/repair number
312465550/100204/58
4) Date when the phone was submitted
4 TH FEB 2010
5) Your alternate contact number



6) Previous Job Sheet Details

09/23/25


BILL-INVOICE DETAILS

CUSTOMER NO 144604069

PURCHASED AT " THE MOBILE STORE-18TH AVENUE, ASHOK NAGAR, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU, INDIA' ?pH=044-64627607/8

ITEM 86747
INVOICE NO: TN5770
DT 3 JUNE 2009
9600034650

regards

hari narasimhanMY

Hello,

We suggest you to send a written notice to the CMD of Nokia, Manager of ROCKY AGENCIES via registered post ( keep one copy with you, this may help if you need to knock the consumer forum ), mention all the details in it and attach all the photocopy of relevant document and ask them to solve the problem within the mention time in the notice else you will drag them to the consumer forum.

Visir: Notice before filing consumer complaint for notice reference.

Address:

Managing Director,
Nokia India Pvt Ltd.
5F Tower A and B
Cyber Green DLF,
Cyber city, DLF phase II
Sec-25 A Gurgaon, Haryana
122002

Hope this may solve your problem.

Hello Sir,


I am Nitin Gurram, and i bought Nokia N85 from Authorized Nokia Dealer on July 23, 2009. Due to poor manufacturing, In December i have managed to get Repair problems on It's Speaker defect. At the same time My battery was also poor functioning and i consulted Nokia Care and they have sent the defected piece for replacement, and replaced by new battery after 15 days. however they didn't provide any alternative during these days.

Again in February My mobile is malfunctioning due to software/hardware problems and consulted Nokia Care on 11-02-2010. The target delivery date is 12-02-2010. However they were unable to do it and keep sent me back to home with a disappointment. on 13-02-2010, they sent it to Main Branch for repairing, and told me to visit after 10days. and when i visited after 10days, they asked me to wait for one more week. and when i reached Nokia Care on 02-03-2010, My mobile was back and however the problem still exists and showed them. They tried to convince me with an argument that it's Operating System takes lot of time to settle down after rebooting. i patiently showed the problem after booting too. however they asked me to use for few days and test it, sensibly neglected as i can see the problem there itself. and they said we are going to send again to Mumbai Head Quarter, and asked me to visit after 10days. Now it's 18-03-2010 and i am still unable to get my phone back and they keep on snagging it will be back in 2-3 days.

I am really frustrated. as it's now almost 60days (2months), i am not having my product within first 8 months of it's warranty and additional 15days loss due to battery problem in December. why should i accept their service quality when i can't use the product for almost 2 and half months within 8 months.

I am looking for a suggestion, can i go to Consumer Court for Extended Warranty for 3 more months against 1 year warranty or can i request of refunding amount?? please tell me soon

hello sir,
I am rajesh meena , and i bought Nokia 5130xpress music from mobile store on september 06, 2009 for Rs.5939/-.
After 3months k baad mera phone apne aap switch off ho jata tha or mere phone ka data lost ho jata tha.phir main le kar ise nokia customer care gaya to unhone software update kar k de diya us k baad phone 5 din to thik chala or phir wo hi problem start ho gayi us k baad main do baara nokia customer care gaya to unho ne phir se software update kar diya or mujhe phone wapsa de diya.is k baad bhi phone sirf 6 ya 7 din hi thik se chala or phir se wahi problem start ho gaye...or is baar to is main music or videos bhi nahi chal rahe the...main phir se nokia customer care gaya....to mere phone ko nokia head office banglore bhej diya gaya.......phone banglore se 12 days main wapas aaya.....after 7 days wo hi problem start ho gaye......to main 26 march 2010..... ko phir se nokia customer care gaya to unse main ne phone replacement kar ne liye kaha to care centre k manager ne meri baat nokia ceo executive se bat kari to maine usko apne phone ki problem batai.....or phone replace karne k liye kaha to mujhe mana kar diya gaya....main ne unse kaha ki main consumer court main complaint karunga to unho ne kaha ki kardo complaint............so, sir ji aap hi mere help kigye.:&:&:&:&:&:&

I had newly bought Nokia E71 Mobile and within first month itself the mobile went out of order. I went to Nokia Care with complaint (Job Sheet Number: 552504867/100519/25; IMEI Number: 359357035090787) and they are giving me new E71 Mobile as replacement. However, I not interested in E71 and lost faith on it. I am asking for another version of mobile with same or higher price but Nokia is not agreeing to it.
My condition is I don't want another E71. The expectation is Nokia should provide me another mobile with same or higher price; e.g. E72. If higher, then I am ready to pay extra.