Haryana

Ambala

CC/128/2016

Tarunesh Anand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Base 39 Mobile Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Rohit Bector

20 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 128 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution         : 08.03.2016

                                                          Date of decision   : 20.01.2017

          Tarunesh Anand S/o Sh. Narender Anand # 114, BC Bazar Ambala Cantt.

                                                       ……. Complainant.

1. Base 39 Mobile Communication, behind S.D. Girls Hostel Gian Marg, Ambala Cantt-133001.
2. Nank Telecom, Shop No. 74/75 Ghandi Market, Ambala Cantt (Service Centre).
3. MPS Telecom Pvt. Ltd., D-55, 1^st & 2^nd Floor Okhla, Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi.

                                                    ….…. Respondents.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

Present:       Sh. Rohit Bector, counsel for the complainant.

                   Ops already exparte v.o.d. 28.04.2016.

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased mobile handset make HTC Desire 626G Plus sim bearing IMIE     NO. 358030062739169 & 358030062739177 from OP No. 1 vide invoice No. 27187 dated 30.06.2015 amounting to Rs. 16,500/- which was having one year warranty. The mobile phone started giving problems from its very beginning like touch screen, its body/screen seems to be hot, mobile hand set function at very slow and hang again and again. Further submitted that due to all above said problems, complainant visited to Op No. 2 on 20.08.2015 along with his mobile set and narrated there the whole story about the fault in his set and after inspection the mobile set the OP no. 2 replaced the mobile set with new one mobile set to the complainant with changed IMIE No. 358030064340099 on 31.08.2015 but after two months the new mobile set has started giving same problems like the earlier and the complainant visited Op No. 2  again and narrated the matter. Further submitted that OP No. 2 received the mobile set on 03.11.2015 and issued a job card and after that no action has been taken by Op No. 2 as well as the complainant has not received any handset till date. So, the complainant given the legal notice and lastly when they refused to change the said HTC mobile set. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Registered notice issued to Ops but none have turned up on their behalf and they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.04.2016.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-9 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file. The case of complainant is that the complainant had purchased a mobile handset make HTC Desire 626G vide bill No. 27187 dated 30.06.2015 amounting to Rs. 16,500/- Annexure C-2 and the handset started giving problems of functioning in touch screen and its body/screen seems to be hot, mobile hand set function at very slow speed and get hang again and again which was replaced by OP No. 2 vide IMIE No. 358030064340099 on 31.08.2015 but after two months, the replaced mobile phone is also started giving problems like the above said mobile phone. Perusal of the job sheet Annexure C-4 reveals that the mobile set occurred problems due to its “touch not working” and the version of complainant duly supported by his affidavit reveals that the mobile in question started giving problems i.e. touch screen, its body/screen seems to be hot, mobile hand set function at very slow and hang again and again within its warranty period inspite of various visits by complainant thus the OPs are negligent in rectifying the problems of mobile set. The Ops despite registered notice not pursued the case and they were proceeded against exparte. As such, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant.

                   We find that the OP No. 1 has sold the defective mobile which was manufacturer by OP No. 3 and service centre has not rendered the proper service to the complainant who is a franchisee of the Op No. 1 i.e. Manufacturer Company. So, the Ops are liable to replace the mobile in question or to refund the costs of the mobile in question.

5.                In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with costs and Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To replace the Mobile set in question with a new one of the same model. If the same model is not available then to refund the cost of mobile set to the tune of Rs.16,500/- as per Annexure C-1 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization. It is made clear if the amount is recovered from Ops No. 1 and 2 then the both i.e. dealer and service centre can recover the amount from their manufacturer i.e. Op No. 3.

 (ii)    Also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

                   Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 20.01.2017                                       Sd/-

                                                                                       (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                  Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member