I purchased a NOKIA-N-72 ESN/IMEI No. 359400002250537 warranty reference no. APAINY082984344 from authorized dealer at Pune. This mobile phone developed some problem i.e the three buttons stopped working properly. I took the said mobile with relevent documents to the dealer who directed me to service center (Bright point India Pvt Ltd, Pune-Satara Road) which is at the totally other end of the dealer's shop.
At the Service Center I was made to wait for a long time before they could attend to me. When I explained to them the problem, they asked me to deposit the set on a job card on which they mentioned that it was subject to technical verification for liquid logged and tampering of handset.
I insisted that there was no case of liquid logging as rest everything else was functional. However, they insisted that whatever is mentioned on the job card has to be accepted or they will return the set. I had no choice but to leave it for repairs. I was asked to call them after 15 days and confirm.
When I tried to call the service center on the given number there was no response. After a couple of my personal visits I could manage to get the mobile set after almost more than a month after paying Rs 1000/-. The very next day I realized that the Audio of the handset was not working properly. I took it to the dealers again who told me to take it to the Service Station again.
This time I took it to one Akshay Telecom at 25/3 Satpute Bhavan, Shivajinagar, Opp PMT Depot, Pune. Once again the handset was given to them and again on the job sheet no.057434038/070806/7 dated 06 Aug 07 they endorsed the same old tactical remark that subject to technical verification for liquid logged and tampering of handset. Now I am again being asked to pay as again they say that it was liquid logged.
I have been without a mobile handset for over three months now. This is how nokia and it's authorized dealers and service centers are making money. If they had repaired the set for liquid logged then how within a couple of days same problem crops up and again one is being pressurized to pay when on both the occasions the set was under warranty period.
0 comments