Haryana

Gurgaon

CC/344/2013

Kaithavalappil Eugene Joslin - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Future Value Retail Limited - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jul 2016

ORDER

                                             DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001

                                                                                                      Consumer Complaint No: 344 of 2013                                                                                                                                                Date of Institution: 30.09.2013/01.10.2013                                                                                                                            Date of Decision:  27.06.2016

Kaithavalappil Eugene Joslin s/o Sh. K.M.Joslin, R/o A-11, Ground Floor, Southend Floors, Near Omaxe Plaza, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122018.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ……Complainant.

                                                Versus

Future Value Retail Limited, Big Bazar, SPAZEDGE MALL, Sector-47, Sohna Road, Gurgaon through its General Manager/Authorized person.

 

Cell Point, S-68-69, Sahara Mall, M.G.Road, Gurgaon through its proprietor.

 

..Opposite parties

                                                                                               

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                  

 

BEFORE:     SHRI SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT

SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

                   SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.

 

Present:        Shri  Kuldeep Sharma, Adv for the complainant.

                    Shri Rohan Adv proxy counsel for Sh. Naiyer Mateen, Adv for OP-1

                    OP-2 exparte.

 

ORDER       SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he has purchased a mobile phone Nokia Lumia 720 from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.18,500/- on 15.08.2013 in sealed packet. On the next day i.e. on 16.08.2013 when the complainant opened the packet and tried to switch on the mobile phone after fixing  the battery the mobile phone had not started. He informed the OP-1 in this regard and shown them the mobile phone. The officials of the OP-1 tried to switch on the mobile phone but of no use and as such the mobile phone was not in working condition. Thereafter he also contacted the officials of OP-1 who after checking the handset told the complainant that the handset was in dead condition and suggested the complainant to contact OP-1 who subsequently flatly refused to change the mobile phone of the complainant and thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund the price of the handset or to replace the same with new one. He also sought compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony.

2                 Notice of the complaint was given to the OP-1. OP-1 in its written reply has alleged that the product in dispute in the present complaint is a branded product of the well known manufacturer of mobile phone i.e. Nokia. The manufacturer is solely responsible for any defects/complaints and service back up in respect of the product manufactured by the said company, irrespective of the fact that the said product was sold through the sales out of OP-1. The OP-1 has further alleged that complainant was unable to deposit all related accessories of the mobile phone as required and therefore, the replacement request of the complainant could not be processed further by the manufacturer company and thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1.

3                 However, OP-2 failed to turn up before this Forum despite service and thus, was proceeded exparte vide order dated 26.11.2013.

4                 We have heard the parties and have perused the record available on file carefully.

5                 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it emerges that the complainant has purchased mobile phone Nokia Lumia 720 from OP-1 on 15.08.2013 for a sum of Rs.18,500/- in a sealed packet. However, on the next day i.e. on 16.08.2013 when the complainant tried to switch on the mobile phone it did not start. He contacted OP-1 who also tried to switch on the mobile phone but of no use. Then he contacted OP-2 who after thorough checking told the complainant that the mobile phone is dead. He requested the opposite parties either to refund its price or to replace the same but of no use and thus there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

6                 As per the contention of the OP-1, the mobile phone purchased by the complainant from OP-1 was in sealed packet and for any problem/defect, if any, in the mobile set the manufacturer was solely responsible for the same and no responsibility rests with the OP-1. In support of his contention learned counsel for OP-1 has placed reliance on Hindustan Motors Ltd and another Vs N.Siva Kumar and another (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 654 as well as Abhinandan Vs Ajit Kumar Verma and Ors 1(2008) CPJ 336 (NC).

7                 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it emerges that the complainant has purchased mobile phone of Nokia company model Nokia Lumia 720 from OP-1  for a sum of Rs.18,500/- in sealed packet vide invoice dated 15.08.2013(copy of invoice placed on record). However, on the next day i.e. 16.08.2013 when the complainant opened the sealed packet and tried to switch on the mobile phone after inserting the battery it was found that the mobile phone had not started. He contacted with the OP-1 & 2 who tried their level best to switch on the mobile phone but of no use. From the facts and circumstances of the case it emerges that the phone of the complainant was not functioning since its purchase and even it did not switch on. Thus, it means that a defective phone was sold to the complainant. However, OP-2 has not come present before this Forum to contest the case and thus, the evidence produced by the complainant against the OP-2 goes unrebutted.

8                 Therefore, we direct the opposite party no.2 to replace the defective handset of the complainant with new one of the same model or upgraded model on deposit of old handset with accessories. The complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.The OP 2 shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.

 

Announced                                                                                                       (Subhash Goyal)

27.06.2016                                                                                                           President,

                                                                                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

 

(Jyoti Siwach)        (Surender Singh Balyan)

Member                 Member