Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/59/2016

Pushp Raj S/o Girdhari Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharat Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant Inperson

23 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No.59 of 2016.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 19.2.2016.

                                                                                     Date of decision: 23.06.2016.

 

Pushp Raj Sharma s/o late Sh.Girdhari Lal, resident of House No.39, Harbanspura, Yamuna Nagar, tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar age 58 years.

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1.         Bharat Communication, near Shivam Palace, workshop road, Vishnu Garden, Yamuna Nagar, tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

2.         Teleworld Gionee Mobiles Service Center, shop no.24/75, Thapar Colony, near Fountain Chowk, Yamuna Nagar, tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

3.         Gionee Service Sintech Technology, Pvt. Ltd. E-9, Block NB-1 Ground floor, Mohan Cooperative Industries Estate, Mathura road, New Delhi 110044.

                                                                                                             … Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Complainant in person.   

              Ops ex parte vide order dated 31.5.2016.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that respondents (herein after referred as Ops) be directed to replace the mobile set with new one and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased a mobile make Gionee M2, IMEI No.865346021939005 vide bill no.8453 dated 2.3.2015 for Rs.9400/- from the OP No.1 who is the authorized dealer of OP No.3-manufacturer and whose service center is OP No.2.  Mobile set in question was working properly for some time, however, later on, it started to give problems.  Complainant went to the OP No.1 on 27.1.2016 and told about the said problem but the OP No.1 asked him to visit the service center i.e. OP No.2.  Accordingly, complainant visited the OP No.2 and lodged a complaint bearing no.16100109537 in respect of touch screen of the mobile in question.  OP No.2 retained his mobile and asked to the complainant to collect the same on 30.1.2016. However, after collecting the mobile set in question on 30.1.2016 from the service center, it came to the notice of the complainant that the problems were not rectified by the OP No.2, so the complainant again visited the service center of the OP No.2 and lodged another complaint bearing no.16200022782, dated 5.2.2016.  Again, when on 6.2.2016, the complainant collected his mobile set from OP No.2, then it comes to the notice of the complainant that sensor of the mobile set in question was not working properly.  Again on 9.2.2016, mobile set in question become dead and ultimately when on 15.2.2016 the complainant visited the service center of OP No.2, the official of the OP No.2 told to the complainant that a major problem has been arisen in the mobile set in question and to rectify the same, some parts are required from the workshop of the company.  After that whole of the internal parts of the mobile set in question were replaced by the Op No.2 but despite that mobile set in question was not working properly.  Due to that the complainant again visited the service center of the OP No.2 and lodged his complaint bearing job sheet no.16200065001, dated 16.2.2016 (Annexure C.2).  Lastly, it has been prayed that the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment which constitute deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.  Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared in person.  Shri Sanjeev Kumar appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and Shri Nadeem Akhtar appeared on behalf of Ops no.2 & 3.  However, later on neither they filed any written statement nor appeared.  So, Ops no.1 to 3 were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 31.5.2016. 

4.                     In support of his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his short affidavit as Annexure CW/A, Photocopy of bill bearing no.8453, dated 2.3.2015 as Annexure C.1, Photocopy of Job sheet dated 16.2.2016 as Annexure C.2 and Photocopy of terms and conditions of warranty as Annexure C.3 and closed his evidence.

5.                     We have heard the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file.  Complainant appearing in person argued that from the very beginning the mobile set in question was not working properly and due to that he visited the Ops No.1 & 2 so many times but the official of the OP No.2 could not rectify the problem in mobile set in question.  Complainant draws our attention towards job sheet in which it has been specifically mentioned that mobile set in question was under warranty and was having problem in respect of touch as well as camera etc. and lastly prayed for acceptance of complaint.

6.                     From the perusal of the photocopy of bill no.8453, dated 2.3.2015 (Annexure C.1) it is duly proved that complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.9400/-.  Further from the perusal of the job sheet dated 16.2.2016 (Annexure C.2) it is clear that mobile set in question was having some problems.  From the perusal of complaint it is also evident that complainant has also lodged so many complaints with OP No.2 in respect of the mobile set in question.  Although, the complainant has failed to file any expert/mechanic report to prove that mobile set in question was having manufacturing defect but in the absence of cogent evidence on behalf Ops it can not be presumed that mobile set in question was not having any problem/fault.  As the Ops failed to file their written statement, affidavit and documents and the version of the complainant is duly supported by his un-rebutted affidavit and complainant has also placed on the file copy of job sheet dated 16.2.2016 (Annexure C.2).  So, we have no option except to partly allow the complaint of the complainant.

7.                     Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops No.2 & 3 to replace the mobile set in question with new one of the same model and same price and further to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and cost of litigation expenses subject to deposit of old mobile set with accessory. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.23.06.2016

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER