Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/437/2013

Sushil Kumar S/o Bharat Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhalla Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Balraj Chauhan

12 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                            Complaint No.437 of 2013.

                                                                                            Date of institution:10.6.2013.

                                                                                            Date of decision: 12.10.2015.

Sushil Kumar son of Shri Bharat Singh, resident of village Sandhali, P.O. Gumthla Rao, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.   

                                                                                                                                                             …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Bhalla Communication, New Hamida Colony, Opposite Luxmi Theatre, Yamuna Nagar through its partner/Proprietor.  
2. Manager Customer Care Executive C/o S. Mobility Ltd. S. Global Knowledge Park, 19-A and 19-B, Sector125 Noida-201301 U.P.
3. Spice Care Centre, Near Nehru Park, Yamuna Nagar through its Partner/Proprietor.                                                                                                                                                                                                               …Opposite parties.

Before:            SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Balraj, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

                Sh. Rajan Bhatia, Advocate, counsel for OPs

                

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Sushil Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the aforesaid mobile set of complainant with new one and further to pay a sum of Rs. 25000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment, agony and loss suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses of Rs. 2200/-. 

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased one Spice Mobile Set bearing MI 351 911304950063705713 on 24.2.2013 from Bhalla Communication, Near Luxmi Theatre, Yamuna Nagar OP No.1 who is authorized dealer of the manufacturing company OP No.2 for an amount of Rs. 3850/-  vide cash Bill No. 15860 dated 24.2.2013. It has been further alleged that after a week from the date of its purchase, the mobile set started not working properly and immediately he informed the OP No.1 who asked him to approach to OP No.3 service entre of OP No.2. On checking, the incharge of OP No.3 informed the complainant that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile set, so it cannot be repaired and the matter was informed to OP No.1 by complainant and on this the OP No.1 had given a telephone No. 07100209D40008 and asked the complainant to lodge his complaint on this number. Accordingly the complainant had made a complaint on this number. It has been further alleged that since the date of purchase the Mobile set had become defective and due to non functioning of mobile set he is suffering loss in his business of about Rs. 1000/- per month. Even the complainant made several requests to OP No.1 to replace his mobile set with new one but he did not pay any heed to his genuine request and made him to run from pillar to post. Thereafter, the complainant served a registered AD legal notice upon the OPs through his counsel but the OPs despite of receipt of notice neither give any reply nor replace the mobile set of complainant with new one. Thus, there is a great deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice, Sh. Rajan Bhatia, Advocate, appeared on behalf of Ops and filed written statement on behalf of OPs by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is false and frivolous without jurisdiction not maintainable and on merit it is submitted that the OP No.3 is pioneer in the field of such type of dual mode phones. There is no complaint of like sort from any corner of country. Spice Mobile is the proud winner of Golden Peacock Award for innovative product/services for the year 2007 to the best of knowledge of the OPs No. 2 & 3, the complainant never entrusted his spice mobile set either to the opposite party No.1 or OP No.3 Service Centre as no job card has been filed by the complainant. Now the complainant by means of present complaint wants to have new spice mobile in lieu of this mobile phone, free of cost, purely by putting false and frivolous allegations against the OPs No.2 & 3. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony and physical harassment and financial loss due to OPs No.2 &.3 and prayed for dismissal of complaint

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Bill dated 24.2.2013 for a sum of Rs. 3850/- as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Registered AD legal notice as Annexure C-2, Postal receipts as Annexure C-3 & C-4, Acknowledgement as Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 failed to adduce any evidence, hence their evidence was closed by court order dated 10.4.2015.

6.         We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file carefully and minutely.

7.                     From the perusal of Annexure C-1, which is copy of bill, it is evident that the complainant purchased the spice Mobile set vide bill No. 15860 dated 24.2.2013 for Rs. 3850/-. The counsel for the complainant argued that at the time of purchasing the abovesaid mobile, it was assured by the said seller that the mobile would provide best service to him and there will be no complaint in the mobile in future and have given the guarantee/warranty of one year of the mobile in question and further assured the complainant that if any complaint or defect arises in the model then the same will be replaced with new one without any delay. It has been further argued that the said mobile after a week from the date of purchase started not properly functioning and immediately he informed the OP No.1. Learned counsel for the complainant further alleged that the defects were brought into the notice of opposite party No.3 who checked and stated that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile set, so it cannot be repaired. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for OPs No.2 & 3 argued that complainant has concocted a false and frivolous story just to replace his mobile set with new one. The complainant has never approached to the Service Centre OP No.3 or OP No.1 & 2 and no job card has been placed on file. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.                     We have gone through the arguments advanced by both the parties, The contention of the OPs that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile set and the complainant did not contact with the OPs is not tenable to our mind. As the complainant purchased the mobile set on 24.2.2013 and sent a registered AD legal notice on 9.5.2013 which is evident from Annexure C-2 then how it can be said that the complainant did not contact with the OPs. However, the OPs despite receipt of notice neither gave any reply of notice nor replace/repair the mobile set of the complainant. Further version of the complainant is supported by his affidavit Annexure CX. As the problem of mobile set has been reported only within 2 months from its purchase as is clear from Annexure C-2. Further the OPs failed to file any affidavit of service centre Incharge of OP No. 3 that the complainant has not approached to them. So, we are of the considered view that it cannot be ruled out that the problem in mobile set was not due to manufacturing defect. Even, the OPs failed to file any affidavit of service engineer, and other evidence to prove his case, hence, we have no option except to accept the complaint of the complainant.

10.                   We are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for relief qua repair of his mobile set. Hence, we direct the OPs No.2 & 3 to repair the mobile phone of complainant and set it in proper working order free of costs within 15 days from the receipt of mobile set from the complainant.  As such, the complaint is partly allowed in above terms.  Copies of this order be sent to parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 12.10.2015.                   

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.