In respect of the defective service and trade practieces of Nokia products by its authorised outlets and service centers, a consumer complaint has been filed and is pending for disposal. The pending complaint is attached herein as a proof of the same as below.
BEFORE THE HONBLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANYAKUMARI AT NAGERCOIL
CD OP 2011
Between
S.SURESHKUMAR … COMPLAINANT
And
1. Planet Nokia,
A P N Plaza,
Opp. To Hindu College Road
Chettikulam Junction,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2. Nokia care,
Planet Nokia,
1st Floor, A P N Plaza,
Opp. To Hindu College Road
Chettikulam Junction,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
3.NOKIA
Devices, Market, Corporate Development Office and
Corporate Functions,
Unit No II, International Tech Park, CSIR Road, Tharamani
Chennai-600113 ….. OPPOSITE PARTIES
ADDRESS FOR THE COMPLAINANT;
S.Sureshkumar, Son of N.Singaram, Indian, Advocate, having office at No.162, TVM Road, Krishnancoil, Nagercoil, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, PIN-629001.
ADDRESS FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES;
1. Planet Nokia, A P N Plaza, Opp. To Hindu College Road, Chettikulam Junction, Nagercoil, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
2. Nokia care, Planet Nokia, 1st Floor, A P N Plaza, Opp. To Hindu College Road
Chettikulam Junction, Nagercoil, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
3.NOKIA, Devices, Market, Corporate Development Office and
Corporate Functions, Unit No II, International Tech Park, CSIR Road, Tharamani
Chennai-600113 . and at Nokia India Pvt Ltd Nokia Telecom Sez, Sipcot Industrial Park, Phase -III, A1, National Highway No.4, (NH-4) Sripermbudur, Tamil Nadu - 602105
COMPLAINT filed under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by
ADVOCATE T.JAYARAJAKUMAR ;
1. The complainant is a practicing advocate and is having office at above mentioned address.
2. Opposite party No-1 is the seller of No-3 of Nokia products at Nagercoil.. Opposite party No-2 is the authorized service center for Nagercoil. Opposite party No-3 is the Nokia Brand mobile phone Manufacturer, having office at Chennai.
3. The complainant has purchased a Nokia mobile phone from Opposite No.1 on 31/07, vide Product item N-C7, a touch phone handset Serial No. 358261041114469, for a sum of Rs. 17, 000/- through invoice Bill No.5603, Dt;31/07.
4. The complainant has purchased the touch phone handset for the multiple purposes of accessing mails easily with 3G internet connection, including for storing various information, contact numbers with names, mail id’s, addresses, and images etc. However, within a short span of purchase, the complainant has experienced the following problems with the handset.
(1) That the handset side key for the screen automatically locked as well as switched on the flash light, in short it is malfunctioned. Consequently despite touch the screen for the incoming calls could not be answered instantly.
(2) Apart from that without notice the flash light on and thus consuming extra battery, which causes strange appearances and embarrassments as if he conducts secret recordings.
5. Hence, the complainant approached the Opposite No.2 on 28/09 to rectify the mistakes. Vide job sheet number 430465550/110928/33 it was handed over to Opposite no.2 for repairs at about 13.03 hrs. As per instructions of Opposite No.2 that the handset defects will be cured within a day, the complainant returned on the same day of 28/09 to receive the handset, wherein Opposite No.2 said that the mistake was cured. Whilst checking the same, it is found that ‘No network’ despite checking with various SIM cards. Hence, Opposite No.2 represented that for this new issue that developed after the service, the handset have to be opened or to be sent to the company and in case of sending to the company, it will take at least 10 days. Accordingly Opposite party No.2 retained the handset and instructed the complainant to contact on the next day, ie., on 29/09 for further information.
6. Accordingly, the complainant has approached Opposite Party No.2 office on 29/09 evening and received the handset in a working condition at about 5.30 PM. Whilst clarifying the issue whether the handset was opened for repairs, staff of Opposite No.2 represented affirmatively that the handset was ‘opened’ for correction and then the connectivity was restored. However on that same day at about 7.30 PM itself, again the complainant experienced the same problems, that automatically the side lock malfunctioned and automatic flashlight goes on and consequently he could not answer the incoming calls. In fact this time it seems more rather than before repair. Besides often the screen blinks as if it loosely connected inside. Hence immediately the same was reported to Opposite party No.2 through phone since no response, the same was intimated to Office of the Opposite party No.2 again on 30/09, wherein got a reply that the handset will be sent to the company for further repairs, which will take at least 10 days.
7. Hence, the complainant himself has sent a representation as notice on 3/10 through registered posts to 1 to 3 Opposite parties and in which receipt the representative of the 2nd Opposite party visited the complainant and convinced that assuring best service within 15 days time that the hand set to be sent to Chennai company office for necessary rectifications and if it is not complied within 15 days, assured to replace the same with new handset. Also agreed to lend some used handset for stand by till the rectification of 15 days time. Accordingly, on 06/10, again the hand set was handed over to the staff cum representative of the Opposite party No.2 through service job sheet No. 430465550/111006/72 Dt;6/10 and an used hand set Nokia 5230 was handed over to the complainant as a stand by mobile.
8. However, even after 25 days, the handset was not returned nor anything resulted from the Opposite parties and on 28/10 the complainant enquired through mobile from the Customer care, it is understood that the handset is yet to be rectified and further reverted with a new statement that the said handset’s ‘motherboard’ was changed and will be given within a day. But till filing of this complaint it is not returned as represented but the Opposite party No.2 evades to return.
9. The handset’s previous problem was neither rectified by Opposite Party No.2 despite on their 1st time service. But during the service, a new problem arose that caused to ‘open’ the newly purchased handset for repairs, means that the handset’s internal board was learnt opened which may deteriorate its resale value. The handset is a newly purchased one and within a month the complainant got experienced the problem. Apart from that, the handset became very hot and while clarification it is represented by Opposite Party No.1 that because of 3G internet connection, the handset would appear hot as well as the battery charge will also reduce very shortly.
10. The complainant has purchased the mobile handset from Opposite party No.1 for a total cost of Rs.17, 000/- believing the quality of Opposite party No-3’s brand that it will function properly and defect free when compared to the other products. Though there are lot of other company’s products available on market the complainant has purchased the product of Opposite Party No.3, based on the bonafide belief that the products are No.1 in the market: From the wide advertisements made in every media that the products of Opposite party No.3 are worthy and a standard one apart from other features displayed; but to dismay, the product purchased from Opposite Party No.1 is defective and malfunctioned. Even during the warranty period of 1 year from the date of purchase and despite Opposite party No.3’s statutory responsibility for the hand set, the service of the Opposite party No.2 could not correct the problem, but developed a new defect and consequently the product’s value became low. From the day of its purchase, the handset is almost retained with the Opposite party No.2 for some repairs and even after assurance by the Opposite party No.2 to be rectified within 15 days from 6/10, till date there is no progress resulted to the complainant.
11. The complainant is a bonafide purchaser for a valuable consideration, lost the usage and the very purpose of the mobile was not served or in other words, defeated. Already two days, ie on 28/09 and 29/09 the complainant was put into much trouble without a handset. Further despite paid Rs. 17, 000/- for the purchase, the complainant is caused to use an unused worthless mobile being Nokia 5230 for a quite a long time ie, from 6/10 to till date. The complainant is put to untold mental torture and humiliations for purchasing such a kind of unworthy mobile from Opposite party No-3’s brand from Opposite No.1 . The complainant is ready to return the packs and other accessories of the mobile but the Opposite parties are evading to rectify the issue.
12. The complainant was put to discomfort, much hardship viz, mental and physical torture, strain, pain and sufferings in addition to unnecessary expenses. The above facts would indicate that the product of the Opposite Parties is suffered from the above defects which is also not cured within a reasonable time or efforts. The above defects are ‘ valid defects’ in the very product as well as ‘defective service’ in rendering service under the purview of Consumer Protection Act which seriously prejudiced the complainant. Thus rightly coming under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.
13. The complainant has filed the documents viz, purchase bill Dt; 31/07, Service job sheet Dt;28/09 and delivery note Dt;29/09, representation as notice Dt; 3/10 with its postal receipts and served acknowledgments, unclaimed returned notice, and Service Job sheet Dt; 06/10, are all filed in support of the complainant’s contentions and the same may be read as part and parcel of this complaint.
14. Cause of action for the complaint arose on 31st July the date of purchase of the 3rd opposite party’s product handset from 1st opposite party and on developing complications whilst usage, when submitted to the 2nd Opposite party for rectifications on 28/09 and even after rectifications of the handset, received back on 29/09 which developed various complications with the handset and on 3/10 the date of the issue of notice to the 1 to 3 opposite parties and after acknowledging their liability, on 6/10 when the 2nd Opposite party convinced the complainant to comply the same within 15 days and even on completion of 25 days, despite demands made by the complainant, there was no result from the 2nd Opposite party and on every date when the opposite parties failed to comply the same and continuing their defective service and practice at the office of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties that situate at A P N Plaza, Opp. To Hindu College Road, Chettikulam Junction, Nagercoil, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, that all happened within the jurisdiction of this Honble forum. Hence this Honble forum has got jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
15. Since the relief sought for is within Rs. 1 lakh, a fixed fee of Rs 200/- is paid by way of DD.
It is therefore prayed that this Honble forum may be
pleased to take cognizance of the complaint against the 1to 3 Opposite parties
and
(1) replace the handset with the equivalent model, to the worth of Rs. 17, 000/- or return the money of Rs. 17, 000/- to the complainant and
(2) pay Rs. 25, 000/- as damages towards for the loss of time, effort and mental torture etc., and
(3) and award such other and further relief as this Honble forum may be pleased as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render Justice.
VERIFICATION;
I, Sureshkumar Son of N.Singaram, the complainant herein do declare that the facts stated herein above are true to the best of my belief, knowledge and information and I signed this at Nagercoil on
COMPLAINANT;
COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT;
(T.JAYARAJAKUMAR)
LIST OF DOCUMENTS;
1. Dt; 31/07 Purchase Bill - Original
2. Dt; 28/09 Service job sheet -Copy
3. Dt; 29/09 Delivery note - Original
4. Dt; 3/10 representation as notice - Office copy
5. Dt; 3/10 postal receipts -Original
6. served acknowledgments - Originals
7. Left unclaimed returned notice - Original
8. Dt; 06/10 Service Job sheet - Original
VERIFICATION;
I, Sureshkumar Son of N.Singaram, the complainant herein do declare that the facts stated herein above are true to the best of my belief, knowledge and information and I signed this at Nagercoil on
COMPLAINANT;
COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT;
(T.JAYARAJAKUMAR)
0 comments