Order No.  12  dt.  08/03/2017

            The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant purchased a Nokia Handset on 04.12.2012 being model no. ASHA 311 from o.p.no.3 by paying Rs.6,500/-. On the following day he noticed that an used and old handset was delivered to him. On 07.12.2012 he reported the matter to the outlet who kept the mobile set and used  a receipt to that effect and asked him to meet on 08.12.2012. On 08.12.2012 o.p. no.3 refunded the entire amount paid by the complainant. Complainant again purchased one handset of same brand on 10.12.2012 from o.p.no.3. However the said handset was also found defective. After 2 or 3  days of  said purchase complainant noticed that the site Nokia Music Stores was not functioning. Then complainant visited the service center of Nokia i.e. the office of o.p.1. on the same day. O.p. no.1  solved the problem. But after 15 days  same problem arose. Again complainant  visited the office of o.p.1 and they solved the problem. Again the same problems arose after 15 days. The new problem was that the handset was not functioning properly and it showed broken icon. Again complainant visited the office of the o.p.no.1 and they requested him to contact with Nokia Customer Care for better service. Accordingly complainant contacted with Customer Care Center and they assured the complainant that the problem would be solved within 4 to 5 working days. But they did not  solve the problem. Then complainant deposited the said handset at the Nokia Care Center and collected the repaired handset. After 7 days the same problem arose. On 22.03.2013 the complainant again deposited the same handset and a  job sheet was issued with another handset model no. Nokia X3 for temporary  use.  On 13.04.2013 when complainant went to collect the handset he found that  handset was not functioning properly. Then complainant requested them to replace the same with a  new handset. On 20.04.2013 complainant sent a letter to o.p.no.1 requesting to refund the amount.  On 24.04.2013 o.p.1  informed the complainant that they were ready to replace the same with a new one. On 26.04.2013 complainant collected the new handset which was not in sealed pack. Complainant asked for warranty period and 3 months free subscription of download facilities from Nokia Music Stores. But o.p.1 did not give any satisfactory reply. Then complainant refused to take the handset. Then o.p.1 sent a letter  on 06.05.2013 requesting the complainant to collect the handset  from their centre.

            Though the notice was served upon o.ps they did not appear before the Forum. So the case was heard ex parte as against all the o.ps.

Decision with reasons

            We have gone through the complaint petition and documents in particular.  It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased mobile set being model no.311 Nokia Asha from M/s Limton Pvt Ltd. by paying Rs.6,500/-/-. Thereafter complainant  faced problem several times for that mobile set in question. Complainant contacted  with o.p.1 several times but within a short interval problems arose again and again with the mobile set in question. O.p.1 did not solve the problem of the handset and ultimately on 26.04.2013 they offered a new set but without any warranty and 3 months free subscription of download facility from Nokia Music Stores. From the very beginning complainant faced problem of handset and therefore he demanded for new sealed pack handset with warranty or refund of  money. Since the complainant used the mobile set  for a few days only he demanded for the warranty period which was not provided by o.p.1. Though the complainant had not made  the manufacturing company i.e. Nokia as a party we are in the view that o.p.1 acted on behalf of the company and for that reason they offered a new set and also sent a letter dated 06.05.2013 issued to complainant to collect the new set. Hence we are in the view that o.p.1 acted on behalf of the company. The case was filed in the year 2013 and it will be  infructuous  if o.p.1 be directed for returning the handset after more than three years. Due to unchallenged testimony, we have nothing to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the complainant and we find deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.1 and as such the complainant is entitled to get relief.

As a result the complaint petition succeeds.

            Hence, ordered

            that the case no.357/2013 is allowed exparte as against o.p.no.1 with cost and dismissed exparte as against o.p.nos.2 & 3.

            O.p.no.1 is directed to pay Rs.6,500/- to the complainant.. O.p.no.1 is also directed to pay Rs.500/- for compensation and Rs.500/- for litigation cost. OP no.1  is directed to pay the aforesaid amount  within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.