- (1.)HEARD .
(2.)SH . Ankush Kapoor, respondent No. 1 (complainant) had purchased a Nokia Cell Phone Model 6610 on 1.7.2004 from respondent No. 3 (Tushhar Communications) vide bill whose copy Annexure A -1. However after week's time, it started giving trouble. The respondent No. 1 reported the defects to respondent No. 3, who refused to take the liability upon itself and referred the matter to the respondent No. 2 i.e. Regional Manager, Nokia Care Centre to get the fault repaired. Accordingly, he approached respondent No. 2, who after keeping it for three days stated that the same had been repaired but in fact the handset was not repaired as it started again giving the same trouble. He again approached respondent No. 2 and handed over handset which was returned to him after four days by stating that complete inner machinery of the handset had been replaced. Again on the next day, there was the same problem and again approached respondent No. 2 and handset was left with respondent No. 2 at its request but the matter was not resolved, even legal notice had no effect. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.
(3.)THE appellant did not appear, despite service. Hence, it was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 27.5.2005. Respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 contested the complaint and filed separate written replies. Respondent No. 2 in its written reply stated that there was no deficiency on its part. It admitted that the handset of the complainant was received by it for repair for 24.8.2004 and after repair it was returned on 31.8.2004 but thereafter the complainant again approached with the same problem and he was asked to contact the appellant but the complainant pressed for a new handset in place of previous one, which was refused.
It next stated that it was ready to perform its part and to repair the handset.