Haryana

Sonipat

CC/45/2015

SHAILENDER DATT S/O ISHWAR CHANDER DATT - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/S S.MOBILITY LTD. ,2. M/S DIAMOND MOBILE SHOPPEE,3. STAR ENTERPRISES - Opp.Party(s)

13 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                           

                             Complaint No.45 of 2015

                             Instituted on:13.02.2015

                             Date of order:19.05.2015

 

Shailender Datt son of Ishwer Chander Datt, r/o R-146, Model Town Atlas road, Sonepat.

     …….Complainant

 

                   VERSUS

 

1.M/s S.Mobility Ltd. Address S Global Knowledge Park, 19A and 19B, Sector 125, Noida 201301 UP.

2.M/s S Diamond Mobile Shoppee, Behind Geeta Bhawan Mandir, Geeta Bhawan Chowk, Sonepat.

3.Star Enterprises Shop no.G-2, City Plaza Near Axix Bank Mama Bhanja Chowk, Sonepat.

        ……..Respondents.

         

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

          Sh. Joginder Kuhar, Adv. for respondent no.1.

          Respondent no.2 & 3 ex-parte.

 

BEFORE-   Nagender Singh, President.

          Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

          D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

       Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that on 2.4.2014 he purchased mobile phone of Spice company  Model Mi-422 from respondent no.2 on 2.4.2014 worth Rs.4550/-.  But in the last week of 11/2014 its touch screen started problem and stopped working and upto 17.1.2015 the mobile set has not been returned to the complainant after its repair despite repeated requests and reminders and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In the present case, only the respondent no.1 has contested the present complaint by filing reply, whereas respondent no.2 and 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.3.2015 and 27.4.2015.

         The respondent no.1 in its reply has submitted that the replacement of handset with new handset can only be possible when there is irrepairable manufacturing defect in the handset.   There is negligence conduct himself on the part of the complainant not to approach the ASC for rectification of the defect. So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the respondent no.1 length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.       Complainant has submitted that in the last week of 11/2014 its touch screen started problem and stopped working and upto 17.1.2015 the mobile set has not been returned to the complainant after its repair despite repeated requests and reminders and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

         He has further submitted that the mobile set is still in the possession of the respondents which was deposited by him with the respondent no.3 for rectification of the touch screen.  During the course of arguments, he has also submitted and requested for the refund of the amount as he has already purchased a new mobile set.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has also argued that the replacement of handset with new handset can only be possible when there is irrepairable manufacturing defect in the handset.   There is negligence conduct himself on the part of the complainant not to approach the ASC for rectification of the defect. So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

         But we find no force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 because the mobile set is still in the possession of the respondent no.3 and the respondents even during the pendency of the complaint, has failed to resolve the grievances of the complainant. In our view since the mobile set was defective, the respondents are liable to refund the cost of the mobile set to the complainant and they are liable to compensate the complainant.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to refund Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousands) lumpsum to the complainant towards cost of the mobile, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. The complainant, however, is also directed to return all the accessories of the defective mobile to the respondents.  If any short accessory is found, then the respondents will be at liberty to deduct the cost of the same from the awarded amount.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced 19.05.2015