+DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.49/2019

Kadir Hussain

S/o Shri Hisabat Hussain

R/o House No. A-38/B, Khanpur

 Extn.

New Delhi-110062.                                                      .…Complainant

                                                 VERSUS

Sai Solution

A-86, First Floor Arjun Nagar

Kotla Mubarakpur

New Delhi-110003.

Nokia Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.

Head Offce : DLF Cyber Greens

14^th & 15^th Floor Tower C, Phase-III

DLF City, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002.

Shilpi Communication

38/4, Pilil Kopthi, M.B. Road

Khanpur, New Delhi-110062.                                     ….Opposite Parties

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Present:    None.

ORDER

Date of Institution:19.02.2020

Date of Order       : 05.12.2024

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava

Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking refund of Rs.25,999/-; compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental torture, pain and agony and Rs.20,000/- as litigation charges. OP-1 is Sai Solutions, OP-2 is Nokia Nokia India) Pvt. Ltd., OP-3 is Shilpi Communication.

1. It is stated by the complainant that he had purchased a Nokia 7 plus  phone bearing IMEI No.353400090238531 & 353400092038533 dated 16.06.2018.  Copy of the invoice is annexure-1.
2. It is stated that the phone was under warranty of one year from 16.06.2018 to 15.06.2019 and that the defects in the phone started arising out from the date of purchase.
3. It is stated that defects such as hanging and display flickering started within one month from the date of purchase which was reported to the OP. Twice the phone was given to OP at their authorised service centre but the problem recurred.
4. It is stated by the complainant that OP provided a job sheet dated 03.10.2018 and other multiple times but when the OP failed to fix the defect in the service centre they have decided to replace the handset.  It was told to the complainant that the handset would be replaced after 15 days.  It is further stated that complainant had to call the OP 15 to 16 times for handing over the new phone which was provided finally after the complainant continuously sitting for six hours in their service centre.  Copy of the job sheet dated 03.10.2018 is annexure-2.
5. It is further alleged by the complainant that he registered a complaint with Mediation and Conciliation Centre but OP did not attend the proceedings except once wherein after several discussions and arguments they provided a cheque of Rs.27,000/- dated 10.01.2019 which is the cost of handset.  It is further stated that when the cheque was deposited it was returned unpaid with remarks “cheque with alteration”.  It is the case of the complainant that despite contacting OP cheque was not provided and neither the money was paid. 
6. It is seen from the documents filed on record that the complainant had purchased phone on 16.06.2018 and though it is stated that the phone started giving problem within one month.  The service job sheet placed on record bears the date 03.10.2018.  It is further seen that the complainant has alleged that he took his phone for repair at Kingsway Camp, New Delhi whereas the service job sheet has been issued from Kotla Mubarkpur. 
7. It is also stated by the complainant that he was provided a new phone by the OP after making him sit at the service centre for six hours.  It is not clear as to why OP would provide a new phone and also pay a sum of Rs.27,000/- which is more than the cost of the phone purchased by the complainant. It is further not clear as to the status of the person issuing the said cheque.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SGS India Limited vs Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849 has held the following:-

“The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the Respondent in the complaint.”

5It is therefore, upon the complainant to initially discharge its onus to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP.  This Commission has gone through the pleadings and documents filed by the complainant and find that complainant has not been able to discharge this onus. Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merits.

Copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. order be uploaded on the website.