Thrissur District Commission Holds Nokia And Its Dealer Liable For Selling Phone With Manufacturing Defects, Orders Refund And Compensation

District Commission found Nokia and its dealer liable for deficiency in service and directed them to refund the phone's cost and pay compensation for inconvenience and mental agony.

Background Facts

The complainant purchased a Nokia-2TA 1011 DS mobile phone from the dealer (Second Opposite Party) on 29th June 2018 for Rs. 6,700. He relied on the Nokia's (First Opposite Party) advertisement and dealer's assurance that the phone was robust, free of defects and covered by one year warranty.

However, soon after the purchase the phone began developing issues making it unusable. Following the dealer's advice, the complainant handed over the phone for repairs. Despite multiple repair attempts, the phone was not properly fixed.

Complainant repeatedly raised the issue with the dealer, but no effective solution was provided. Therefore, being aggrieved the complainant filed complaint before the District Commission seeking refund of the phone cost along with compensation and legal expense.

Contentions of Nokia

Nokia denied all the allegations made by the complainant and contended that the defects in the phone were due to the complainant's misuse.

Observation and Direction by District Commission

The District Commission referred to the evidence submitted by the complainant and noted that the phone developed defects within days of purchase and continued to malfunction despite multiple repairs. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the phone suffered from a manufacturing defect.

District Commission observed that a new mobile phone should not require multiple repairs within days of purchase unless it is inherently defective. It held that selling a defective phone to a consumer amounts to an unfair trade practice.

District Commission noted that the dealer failed to coordinate with the manufacturer for effective repairs which shows negligence in service. Since both parties failed in their duties, the Commission held them liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

District Commission held that the complainant suffered inconvenience, mental agony and hardship due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Therefore, it directed the opposite parties to refund Rs. 6,700, pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 towards litigation costs.

Case – Sunil Kumar Versus Nokia Mobile Company Ltd & anr

Citation - CC 545/18

Date – 27^th January, 2025