| Address: Shimla, Himachal Pradesh |
REGISTERED AD/SPEED POST/e-mail.
Dated:30.9.2010
To
1. M/s Gainda Mull Hemraj
67-69, The Mall, Shimla
Through its Proprietor/partner
2. Nokia Care,
1, The Mall, Shimla-171001
through its Proprietor/partner.
3. Nokia India
India through its Manager (Customer Care)
Sub: Legal Notice.
I have been instructed by Sh. Bimal Gupta S/o Sh. Bimal Gupta, Set No. 3, Building No. 38, Middle Bazar, Shimla-1 (H.P.) (hereinafter referred to as my client), to serve upon you this notice to the following effect:-
1. That my client in order to have a good Mobile Cell phone and after going through the advertisement made by you addressee No.3 through Media, visited the authorised dealer of you, addressee No.1 and on 30.9.2010 and you addressee No.1 shown N97 Mobile Cell phone by projecting the same to be one of the best Cell Phones having longer battery life and other latest features. As such, my client believing the said representations of addressee No.1 to be true, purchased a mobile phone being Nokia N97, EMI/MEI No. [protected] for a consideration of Rs. 31,300/- (Rs. Thirty One Thousand Three Hundred only) from the show room of addressee No. 1 (i.e. M/s Gainda mull Hemraj, The Mall, Shimla) vide bill CA1-39210 dated 30/9/2009.
2. The mobile purchased from addressee No.1 started giving problems after few days from its purchase. The Mobile started giving problems to my client while putting on the mobile for charging it started taking a long time i.e. ten hours to get fully charged and battery of mobile used to become hot. The mobile also used to get hanged a number of times while using the phone i.e. while receiving and making the calls.
3. That it is also important to mention that the mobile set of my client used get hot while kept in pocket during day time and thereafter resulting of discharge of battery all of the sudden making the set dead. Not only this vibration mode of the mobile was also not functional right from the very beginning.
4. That the aforesaid problems were brought to the notice to the representative of your company who is always present in the shop of addressee No.1 and advised my client to visit the Nokia care centre for upgrading the software by posing that the problem in the set is due the old version of software. The set as such was even taken to Nokia care centre at The Mall Shimla. Who upgraded the software version but when my client used the phone after the upgradation of software the problem remained as it was earlier.
5. That again my client reported the problem to the representative of the Nokia available in the showroom of the addressee No. 1. He again assured the proper functioning of the set after changing the setting of the mobile set and informing that the problem stands rectified. But in vain.
6. That recently because of inherent defects in the mobile set in question it started giving charging problem as despite putting the same for charging for hours together but it failed to charge the battery at all. When this problem was brought to the notice of your representative in the shop of addressee no. 1 he again advised to take the mobile set to Nokia Care Center. On his advice the set was again taken to addressee No.2 on 18.9.2010 and respondent No.2 after preliminary examination of the set asked my client to leave the set as it will take one or two days to set it right. The Mobile in question of my client was thereafter retained by addressee No.2 vide job sheet No.6617 and my client was asked to collect the same on 20.9.2010. On 20.9.2010 when my client visited addressee No.2 the M.set was given to my client with the understanding that everything has been set right and now there will be no problem. On this assurances, more particularly, in view of the fact that addressee No.2 is one of the authorised/approved Care Centres of addressee No.3 must be expert in the field, more client took the Mobile Set. However, when my client again put the mobile phone for charging, my client was shocked to see that the same problem persisted. As such, my client once again immediately informed addressee No.2 on[protected] about the same and thereafter on 22.9.2010 my client once again visited addressee No.2 on which date addressee No.2 again took the Mobile Set back of my client vide job sheet No.6691 and informed my client that the set has to be sent to company for replacement under Warranty.
7. That it is pertinent to mention that my client being professional had stored contacts and details of his clients in the said phone, which could not kept due to the defect in the mobile set being dead. In these circumstances, my client has left with no option but to purchase another set of Noika Make, being Nokia E-72, vide retail invoice No. CAI 39006 dated 23.9.2010 for a sum of Rs.16600/- from addressee No.1 so that his clients should not face any difficulties in contacting my client.
8. That it appears that your product i.e. Nokia N-97 purchased by my client was having inherent manufacturing defect from day one, but the said fact was deliberately concealed by the representative of you addressee No.3 available in the shop of addressee No.1, when the problem was brought to his notice at the first instance. Even thereafter, addressee No.2 tried to conceal this fact after uploading the software twice, rather they represented that the problem in the set was because of software only.
9. That because of defective set sold to my client my client faced great hardship inasmuch as under the mitigating and forced circumstances he had left with no option but to spend extra money of Rs.16600/-.
10. That my client is a professional and for want of mobile he is facing a great inconvenience in doing his day to day work and as such forced to purchase a new Mobile set, as stated above. As such, you addressees, have opted unfair trade practices including extortion of money on account of acts of omissions and commissions on part of you addressee No.3, my client has suffered mental agony and pain notice and for that purpose my client restricted its claim to Rs.20,000/-, besides burdening extra burden of Rs.16,600/- for purchase of a new Mobile.
I, therefore, by way of this notice call upon you, all addressees, to refund the actual amount of Rs.31,300/- for purchase of N-97, which was taken by addressee No.2 for replacement. Besides this on account of mental agony suffered by my client my client is entitled to Rs.20,000/- as also cost of Rs.16,600/-, which my client has to spent for purchase of new mobile set, and to pay Rs.1100/- as costs of this notice i.e. Rs.69000/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which my client shall be constrained to take appropriate legal proceedings against all you addresses in the Court/Forum having the competent jurisdiction and in that eventuality, my client will claim the actual losses which my client has suffered for want of Cell Phone besides compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and all such proceedings, if initiated will be at your costs and risks. Copy of this notice retained.
Yours sincerely,
(HARMEET SINGH)
ADVOCATE
Aug 13, 2020
Complaint marked as Resolved 
nokia x6 mobile — Malfunctioning of mobile and Fraud
I purchased one Nokia X6 (IMEI No [protected]) on 28 May 2010 from Nokia priority (M/s Tripathi Communication, Haridwar). I was extremely upset with the mobile phone. It does not work properly since I have purchased. Most of time when I wanted to make urgent call, it remains in hanged conditions, touch screen and virtual key either do not work or erratic behaviour is observed. The problem was immediately referred to the Nokia prioroty (M/s Tripathi Communication, Haridwar) for warranty replacement of the set since the problem is detected in the very first week of my purchase, and it was still persisting.As advised by Nokia priority, the handset was handed over to Nokia care centre, Haridwar on 12/7/2010 and the problem was communicated to them by me as well as though Nokia Dealer ( M/s Tripathi Communication, Haridwar). They informed that the software will be loaded again and I have to leave the set for 2 days the same and checking the set and accordingly I handed over the set and received back the set from Nokia Care Centre after re-loading of software and checking at their end and communicated to me as “OK” (as informed by NOKIA Care Centre) on 14 July 2010 evening .
I came back with the mobile set with the assurance given by Nokia Care that the mobile has been set right by them and it is checked for 2 days and now it is perfectly OK. But in reality, the problem was not resolved at all and the mobile set again started giving same problems. I once again approached Nokia care and explained him the problemshown for the repair and requested that the set is giving problem within one week of my purchase and Nokia care should give a Warranty Replacement of the set. The set was handed over to Nokia care on 15th July 2010 and it was communicated to me that the mobile will be sent to Delhi for repair and it will take 2-3 weeks time. On 8th August 2010 I have been told that the mobile is irreparable and company has given ne mobile against Warranty Replacement ( with New IMEI No [protected] duly endorsed in the cash memo) though It did not look like a new set with lot of scratches on the screen, but it was functioning O.K. .
Now within one and half months, the replaced mobile is also started giving lot of trouble particularly (i) audio quality (sound is cracking) is so poor that audio from the other end is not clear and understandable (ii) even after conversation is over and the call is disconnected, the mobile remains in hanged conditions for quite some time and because of this I have to wait for long for making next call. I have again referred the problem to Nokia care located at Haridwar on 29/10/2010 and they have taken the set for repair and issued me a job sheet. Now, from the job sheet it is also very clear that the replaced mobile given to me on 8th Aug 2010 was a used one since purchase date shown in system/Job sheet indicates 12th May 2010 which might have purchased by someone on 12th May 2010 and warranty was effected from that date.
Though I have been told that mobile has been replaced by a new one, it is actually not a new set, rather a used one. This is clear case of fraud being done by Nokia.
Now, with all this I once again express my dissatisfaction and displeasure in puchasing a product from a multinational company NOKIA and I am tired of visiting Nokia Care and sit in long que for repairing the set again and again.
Now in view of this, I request to kindly suggest a permanent solution to this problem once for all.