Useful Information Customer Care Address Popular Judgments
FAQ Consumer Forum Reliance Karnataka Country Club Bajaj Allianz State Bank Of India
Court Fee Airtel Chandigarh Idea ICICI Lombord Andhra Bank
Where to file Complaint Vodafon Bengal Tata Indicom HDFC Standard Life HDFC Bank
Notice Sample Idea Uttarakhand Airtel IffcoTokio Icici Bank
First Appeal Consumer Forum BSNL Gujarat Reliance Metlife Punjab National Bank
Consumer Protection Act Nokia Rajasthan Vodafone SBI Life Insurance Bank Of India
RTI for Banks Micromax Assam Mobile Store Reliance General Insurance Canara Bank
Insurance Ombudsman Lava Uttar Pradesh MTNL New India Insurance Bank Of Baroda
Banking Ombudsman Karbonn Jharkhand Birla Sun Life National Insurance United India Insurance
How to start DND Sony Bihar LIC Oriental Insurance State Bank Mysore
Irctc TATA AIG India Bank


+ Submit Your Complaint
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Nokia Care Centre

  1. #1
    admin is online now Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,015

    Default Nokia Care Centre

    BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:
    VIZIANAGARAM
    (UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

    PRESENT:- SRI N.JAGANADHA RAO, B.Sc., B.L., PRESIDENT.
    SRI P.APPALANAIDU, B.A., Bed., MEMBER.
    SMT P.RUKMINI, B.A., B.L., MEMBER

    FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2009

    C.D.88/08

    BETWEEN:

    Sri D.Ramu,
    S/o Janardhana Rao,
    35 years, Business,
    Residint at A-Block-1,
    Shiridi sai Colony, Thotapalem,
    Vizianagaram. …….Complainant.

    And

    1. M/s Usha Enterprises,
    Besides S.V.Book Point,
    Sri Srinivasa Complex,
    Tank Bund Road, Vizianagaram.
    2. M/s Aditya Cell Care,
    Authorized Nokia Service Centra,
    F-3, Sai durga Commercial Complex,
    Railway station Road, Near ZP Office,
    Vizianagaram.
    3. Nokia Care Centre,
    Rep., by its Manager,
    Solectron Centrum Electronics Limited,
    44, KHB Industrial Area,
    Yelahanka New Town.
    Bangalore. …opposite parties.

    This complaint coming on for final hearing before us on 04-03-2009 in the presence of Sri Ashok Kumar Sarma, Sri P.S.R.Murthy and Sri Karthik, Advocates for complainant and of opposite party No.1 and 3 called absent and remained exparte and Sri P.Hara Gopal, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:

    O R D E R
    1. The complainant, a resident of Vizianagaram, purchased Nokia Cell Phone instrument of 3110 C Model on 20-09-2007 from the 1st opposite party at Vizianagaram for the price of Rs.5,850/-. It has guarantee period for one year from the date of purchase, of Cell. It is complained that after one week of purchase the said set was getting over heat and when the 1st opposite party was approached, some minor repairs were done, but the same problem was recurring. Ultimately on 20-11-2007, the complainant again approached the 1st opposite party with the complaint of over heating and audio failure and requested for exchange. On the advice of the 1st opposite party, the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party, which issued a job card on receipt of the set. When the 2nd opposite party expressed inability to get it repair the 1st opposite party, exchanged the same with another one, which was a used one. When complained, a promise was made that a new set will be given. The 2nd set also stopped functioning with the same defect and memory card was also not accepted. Again at the instance of the 1st opposite party, the second set was also given to the 2nd opposite party on 20-08-2008. Though the 2nd opposite party gave a job sheet while accepting the set, after talking the 1st opposite party, it refused to accept job work and hand over the set to the complainant without repairs or replacement with substitute. Inspite of complaint to opposite party No.3, there is no action. Thus there is gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties is replacing the old set with new one, though the defect occurred within the guarantee period. This failure to do so, amount to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint for a direction to replace the defective piece purchased under bill dated 20-11-2007 or refund the set amount of Rs.5,850/- along with interest at 12% per annum till the date of realization besides compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs.
    2. The 2nd opposite party, which alone is contesting, while denying complaint allegations pleaded that it is only an Authorized Service Centre and when the complainant handed over the instrument for repair, the same was immediately returned to the complainant himself. More over, the 1st opposite party is authorized dealer and the purchase was made from it only, if any replacement was to be done, it would be by opposite party No.1 only. Hence this complaint has to be dismissed.
    3. Opposite parties 1 and 3 remained exparte.
    4. At the time of enquiry, the complainant apart from filing affidavit in support of his claim filed documents marked as Ex.A.1 to A.6.
    5. The 2nd opposite party which alone contested, filed copy of job card and marked it as Ex.B.1.
    6. Both the counsels were heard who reiterated their respective contentions. In view of the contentions raised by either party, the point that would arise for determination in this case is.
    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and
    the complainant is entitled to ask for replacement of the defective set.
    7. POINT:- The complainant purchased a Cell Phone bearing Model No.3110 C with IMEI No.356974011278591 on 20-09-2007 for Rs.5,850/-, under Ex.A.1 bill. When the instrument started giving trouble, he approached the 1st opposite party. On advice of the 1st opposite party he handed over the set to the 2nd opposite party, Nokia Care Centre at Vizianagaram, which issued a job card Ex.A.4 on 20-11-2007. Evidently, he was given another cell phone as a substitute pending repair and that cell instrument bears no. IMEI No.356974011201957. It is the complaint of the complainant that it is an old set that was given as substitute. There is no replacement for the original with new one. Surprisingly, when the 2nd set also started giving trouble, he again approached the 2nd opposite party handing over the set. A fresh job card dated 20-08-2008 was given. It is not clear from the documents filed as to who gave the substitute phone. It is probable, as pleaded by the complainant, that the 1st opposite party gave the second set. One thing is clear that the complainant purchased a set from the 1st opposite party, it gave trouble and it was handed over to the 2nd opposite party and evidently without making repairs, the second set was given to the complainant and unfortunately that second set also given trouble which was also handed over to R2. The complainant evidently taken return of the second set without repair and now wants replacement with new set for the original set purchased by him in view of the defects it developed.
    8. The contention of the 2nd opposite party is that the set brought to repair was taken back by the complainant himself without getting defects rectified.
    9. However, the complainant naturally contended that the original set, within warranty period, developed defects and it was handed over to the 2nd opposite party at the instance of the 1st opposite party and opposite parties are bound to replace it with a new one, as they failed to get it effectively repair. He surrendered the second set before the Court. Ex.A.1 is purchase bill. Ex.A.4 and A.5 are service job cards for the two sets clearly seen that the set originally purchased by the complainant was handed over to the 2nd opposite party at the instance of the 1st opposite party and evidently it was never repaired and returned to the complainant. The second set given as substitute by the 1st opposite party, also gave trouble and that was returned to the complainant, which is now produced in Court. There cannot be any doubt that when the 1st set was surrendered with a defect within warranty period the opposite parties have a liability to either effectively repair it or replace it with a new piece. It is quite clear; though a substitute instrument was given, it was not a new piece which also gave trouble to the complainant. The first set was surrendered to the opposite parties on 21-11-2007 i.e., within two months from the date of purchase. As already observed it was never returned to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party to whom it was handed over. Evidently, there is no possibility to rectify the defect of instrument purchased from them and so the opposite parties have an obligation to replace the same with new one. This is more so, when the defect was brought to its notice, within two months period from the date of purchase and thus well within the warranty period.
    10. The contention of the counsel for the 2nd opposite party that as warranty expired it is not bound to replace with a new one in our view cannot be accepted. The complainant is not at all concerned with the second set, as it was not purchased by him, but given only as a substitute. Even otherwise, the date of purchase was 20-09-2007. The first set was surrendered on 20-11-2007 itself and the second set was also surrendered on 20-08-2008. Thus both the sets were returned to the opposite parties well within warranty period of 1 year from the date of purchase. Such being the case, a duty is cast upon the opposite parties to replace the original cell phone purchased by the complainant under Ex.A.1 bill with a new piece of the same model and the failure to do so inspite of notice, is a clear case of deficiency in service. Hence it is appropriate to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to replace the cell phone with new piece of the same model within 30 days and take return of the substitute cell deposited by the complainant with the Forum.
    11. By the failure of the opposite parties to replace the cell phone with new one and make the complainant to suffer any amount of inconvenience it would be just and proper that the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation. Accordingly this point is answered.
    12. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to replace the defective cell piece of Nokia 3110 C model, already surrendered to the 2nd opposite party, with a new cell piece of Nokia of the same model or pay its cost of Rs.5,850/- (Rupees give thousand eight hundred and fifty only within three weeks of receipt of this Order and also pay compensation of rs.3,000/- (Rupees three housand only) to the complainant with interest at 9% per annum from 20-08-2008 till the date of payment. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are further directed to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).
    Dictated to the Stneo, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 6th day of March, 2009.
    Regards,
    Admin,

    ** PMs asking me for support will be deleted unless I've asked you to PM me with additional details **

  2. #2
    admin is online now Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,015

    Default

    Thiruvananthapuram

    Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Vazhuthacaud

    consumer case(CC) No. 92/2006

    P.Viswambaran
    ...........Appellant(s)
    Vs.

    Nokia India Pvt.Ltd

    Bright Point India Pvt.Ltd

    MD

    The Claim Administrator
    ...........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:
    SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
    SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER
    SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
    C.C. No: 92/2006
    Dated: 30..03..2009
    Complainant:
    P. Viswambaran, Love Dale, Prasanth Nagar, Medical College – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 011.
    (By Adv. Manacaud K. Radhakrishnan Nair)
    Opposite parties:

            1. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., 11nd Floor, Commercial Radiss Hotel, N.H.8, Mahipalpur, New Delhi – 3.
              (By Adv. V.K. Mohan Kumar)
            2. Quilon Radio Service, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001. Represented by its Managing Director.
            3. Bright Point India Pvt. Ltd., Usnaz Towers, 39/4967, B & B1, Near City Union Bank, Pallimukku, M.G.Road, Ernakulam.
              (By Sri. Raj Mohan C.S)
            4. The Claim Administrator, H.C.L Infinity Ltd., E/8/9, 3rd Floor, Vardhaman Plaza, Kalkanchai, New Delhi-110 019.


    ORDER
    Complainant continuously absent in spite of specific direction to appear on this day. No representation also. 1st opposite party represented. Hence complaint is dismissed for default.


    G. SIVAPRASAD,
    PRESIDENT.
    BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER
    S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad.
    BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
    VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
    PRESENT:
    SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
    SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER
    SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
    C.C. No: 92/2006
    Dated: 30..03..2009
    Complainant:
    P. Viswambaran, Love Dale, Prasanth Nagar, Medical College – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 011.
    (By Adv. Manacaud K. Radhakrishnan Nair)
    Opposite parties:

            1. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., 11nd Floor, Commercial Radiss Hotel, N.H.8, Mahipalpur, New Delhi – 3.
              (By Adv. V.K. Mohan Kumar)
            2. Quilon Radio Service, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001. Represented by its Managing Director.
            3. Bright Point India Pvt. Ltd., Usnaz Towers, 39/4967, B & B1, Near City Union Bank, Pallimukku, M.G.Road, Ernakulam.
              (By Sri. Raj Mohan C.S)
            4. The Claim Administrator, H.C.L Infinity Ltd., E/8/9, 3rd Floor, Vardhaman Plaza, Kalkanchai, New Delhi-110 019.


    ORDER
    Complainant continuously absent in spite of specific direction to appear on this day. No representation also. 1st opposite party represented. Hence complaint is dismissed for default.


    G. SIVAPRASAD,
    PRESIDENT.
    BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER
    S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad.
    BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
    VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
    PRESENT:
    SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
    SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER
    SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
    C.C. No: 92/2006
    Dated: 30..03..2009
    Complainant:
    P. Viswambaran, Love Dale, Prasanth Nagar, Medical College – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 011.
    (By Adv. Manacaud K. Radhakrishnan Nair)
    Opposite parties:

            1. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., 11nd Floor, Commercial Radiss Hotel, N.H.8, Mahipalpur, New Delhi – 3.
              (By Adv. V.K. Mohan Kumar)
            2. Quilon Radio Service, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001. Represented by its Managing Director.
            3. Bright Point India Pvt. Ltd., Usnaz Towers, 39/4967, B & B1, Near City Union Bank, Pallimukku, M.G.Road, Ernakulam.
              (By Sri. Raj Mohan C.S)
            4. The Claim Administrator, H.C.L Infinity Ltd., E/8/9, 3rd Floor, Vardhaman Plaza, Kalkanchai, New Delhi-110 019.


    ORDER
    Complainant continuously absent in spite of specific direction to appear on this day. No representation also. 1st opposite party represented. Hence complaint is dismissed for default.


    G. SIVAPRASAD,
    PRESIDENT.
    BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER
    S.K. SREELA : MEMBER



    ......................
    Smt. Beena Kumari. A

    ......................
    Smt. S.K.Sreela

    ......................
    Sri G. Sivaprasad
    Regards,
    Admin,

    ** PMs asking me for support will be deleted unless I've asked you to PM me with additional details **

  3. #3
    admin is online now Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,015

    Default

    ORDER


    Order delivered by Sri. Nazeer Ahmed U. Shaikh, Member



    1)This is a complaint praying to order the OPs to replace the handset and pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.10,000-00.

    2)Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased mobile Nokia Handset 5310 under receipt No.8928 dated 24-1-2008 for Rs.9,750-00 . The handset stared giving problem within a short period of time after purchase and the complainant gave it to the OP-2 for repairs. But the said defect remained unsolved. The handset was given to OP-2 more than 3 to 4 times for repairs but in vain. There is deficiency of service by the OPs. Hence this complaint.

    3)The OP-1 filed WS stating that it is not a case of the complainant the handset is suffering from severe manufacturing defects and irreparable loss. He has not produced any material to prove the alleged defects. He ought to have prayed for repairs if not possible replacement. There is no deficiency of service by this OP. The complainant is not entitled for any damages. He prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

    4)The OP-2 filed WS denying the entire contents of the compliant and further stating that the OP-1 is liable but not himself.

    5)The complainant has filed affidavit and got marked Ex.C-1 to C-5 and MO 1 to MO 6. The OPs 2 filed affidavit. The OP-1 has not filed affidavit.

    6)The point that arises for our consideration is, “Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs” ?

    7)It is the contention of the counsel for the complainant that the mobile handset purchased from the OP-2 went out of order. It could not be repaired by the OPs even after many attempts. The OPs have not replied the legal notice issued by the complainant. This is deficiency of service by the OPs and they are liable.

    8)It is the contention of the counsel for the OP-1 that the handset has been not sent for test to any expert and it is not defective.

    9)The Counsel for the OP-2 urged that if there is any defect in the set, he being the agent, is not liable. But the OP-1 is liable.

    10)We have gone through the affidavits and documents submitted by the complainant. The mobile handset purchased from the OP-1 went out of order and it could not be repaired even after many attempts. The OPs have denied this contention of the complainant. The complainant has produced the mobile set with other accessories before the Forum. The OPs have not filed any application for sending the set for test to an expert. The OPs have not replied the legal notice. Had there been no any defect in the set, the complainant could not have deposited the set before the Forum. It shows that the mobile set is defective. The complainant has claimed for replacement of the handset with compensation. Under the circumstances, if we allow the complaint directing the OPs to replace the mobile handset and pay compensation of Rs.1000-00 to the complainant it will be justifiable.
    We pass the following order.
    O R D E R

    The complaint is allowed. The OPs are directed to replace the mobile handset and pay compensation of Rs.1000-00 (Rs.One thousand only) to the complainant.

    (Order typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced in the open Court on this the,18th March, 2009).

    Member Member President
    Regards,
    Admin,

    ** PMs asking me for support will be deleted unless I've asked you to PM me with additional details **

  4. #4
    rnanda16 Guest

    Default Regarding Problem in N79

    Hi Sir.

    I have purchased Cell Phone of Nokia N79 in 19 Oct 2009 from COM COM at Rajouri Garden.

    after 29 days there is some majoer problem in my phone, there is any dispay there and had submitted the same in Nokia Care Paschim Vihar as on 19 Nov and given for more than 20days time for repair and said that the LCD is not working.

    on 02 Dec i have received my repair phone from care, I have checked only LCD at care and that problem is resolved that time but when reached home and checked phone properly found the KEy pad lock is not working the and Camera Quality is not good and agains i have resubmitted the phone in care very next day.

    On 07 Dec today morning i get muy phone from care but the same problem I am facing the camera/Picture Quality is very poor.
    Kindly look into this matter seriously.
    waiting from your reply.

    Rgds
    Rahul Nanda
    Cell No: 9899247470

  5. #5
    Unregistered Guest

    Angry Complaint

    Dear Sir,

    Myself Anish Joseph, From Munnar. I Buyed Nokia Xpress Music this year Jan. Now i had a problem that in fuctions. If i Select anyone of the functions or attend any calls immediately the display will be became white background and the phone will be switched off. After long time only then it will be back to switch on. I dont know what is the problem with this, am a regular customer of Nokia.

    If u guys can help me, where i have to go and find the suitability for this mobile...


    Please Revert me back to ANISHJOSEPHCA@GMAIL.COM.

    Regards
    Anish Joseph

  6. #6
    arpit kapoor Guest

    Default c6.00

    On behaf of c6 care give me Lumina 510 there is to poor mobile plz give me Lumina 720. regards arpit

+ Submit Your Complaint

Similar Threads

  1. complaint regarding irresponsible behaviour of NOKIA CARE CENTRE
    By sandythehunk in forum Mobile Services
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 10-05-2013, 10:54 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-30-2012, 04:07 PM
  3. Regarding Nokia Care Centre Poor Service
    By Sumit Gupta in forum Mobile Handset
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-06-2011, 03:39 PM
  4. Irresponsible Nokia care centre pupil
    By Prabhakaran GK in forum Mobile Services
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-01-2009, 08:14 PM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-02-2009, 02:39 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •