DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 37 of 01-02- 2008<br /> Decided on : 31-03-208<br /> <br /> Mithu Ram Gupta, Advocate, aged about 52 years S/o Sh. Banarsi Dass, R/o H. No. 17201 Aggarwal Colony, Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Bhushan General Store, Near Skylark Tailor, Subhash Market, Dhobi Bazar, Bathinda through its Proprietor/Partner.<br /> 2.Motorola Service Centre C/o Laxmi Niwas, Kothi No. 255, Veer Colony, Bathinda through its Manager.<br /> 3.Motorola India Private Limited (Formerly, Motorola India Limited) 415/2, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Sector 14, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Managing Director/Manager. <br /> <br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Exparte <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Mobile hand set “Motocrezar” was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 8800/- vide bill No. 2141 dated 18.7.07 on the assurance given by opposite party No. 1 that this set is of best quality and would work properly. After a short period, it started giving problem of hanging, change of date and time and ringing mode. Opposite party No. 1 was approached. Request was made either to replace or set right the problems as it is well within the guarantee period. Opposite party No. 1 advised him to contact opposite party No. 2. Accordingly, opposite party No. 2 was contracted on 20.11.07 and 19.12.07. Problems were brought to its notice. Set was checked by it. He was told that there was virus in the set and that was removed and that set would work properly. On 22.1.08 mobile hand set again started causing problems. Opposite party No. 2 was again approached. Set was checked by it but no satisfactory reply was given. This process was repeated more than three times. Ultimately, he (complainant) was told that there is manufacturing defect and the set has to be sent to Delhi and it would take 15 days time. Ultimately, complainant requested the opposite parties either to replace the set or to refund the price as he is an Advocate by profession and cannot proceed with his profession without mobile hand set even for a single day. They refused to accede to his request. Complainant alleges that opposite parties have caused him mental tension, harassment and agony. There is deficiency in service on their part. In these circumstances, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to replace the mobile hand set with a new one; pay him compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Opposite parties 1 & 2 were served, but they paid no heed to contest the complaint. Accordingly, they have been proceeded against exparte. Registered A.D. post notice was issued to opposite party No. 3 on 12.2.08. Neither registered cover nor A.D. was received till 14.3.08. Accordingly, opposite party No. 3 was deemed to have been duly served. No-one came present on its behalf. Accordingly, it has been proceeded against exparte.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has tendered his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of bill No. 2141 dated 18.7.07 (Ex. C-2) , affidavit of Sh. Parmod Kumar (Ex. C-3) and photocopy of warranty card (Ex. C-4) in exparte evidence.<br /> 4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record.<br /> 5. Complainant in his affidavit Ex. C-1 reiterates his version in the Complaint. Ex. C-2 is the copy of bill perusal of which reveals that mobile hand set in question was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 8800/- on 18.7.07. This product has been warranted by the company for a period of one year. As is evident from Ex. C-1 this hand set had started causing problem of hanging, change of date and time and ringing mode. As per direction by opposite party No. 1, opposite party No. 2 was approached by him for setting right the problems. He contacted opposite party No. 2 on 20.11.07 and 19.12.07. He was told that there was virus and that was removed. Despite this, set did not work properly. Again it started giving problems on 22.1.08. Set was again checked by opposite party No. 2, but no satisfactory answer was given. Opposite party No. 2 was again contracted by the complainant 2-3 times but his grievances were not redressed. Ultimately, he was told that there was manufacturing defect in the set. Complainant has placed and proved on record affidavit Ex. C-3 of Sh. Pramod Kumar who is a mechanic of mobile hand sets for the last three years. He kept mobile hand set of the complainant under observation without opening it as the set is under warranty period. After observations he found that set is having problem of hanging, change of date and time and ringing mode changes automatically. His opinion is that there is manufacturing defect in the set. This evidence on the record is gone unchallenged and unrebutted as opposite parties have not cared to contest the complaint. Opposite parties have failed to rectify the problems or replace the hand set. In these circumstances, deficiency in service on their part is established.<br /> 6. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. As per foregoing discussion, defects have not been rectified by the opposite parties. In such a situation, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties either to replace the mobile hand set purchased by him through bill dated 18.7.07, copy of which is Ex. C-2 or refund the price thereof alongwith interest @9% PA. From 20.11.07 on which date opposite party No. 2 was approached for getting the defects in the set rectified till payment. In this view of the matter, we are fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission of Tamil Nadu in the case of Sky Cell Communication Limited. Vs. M. Chinasamy IV(2007) CPJ 175. Complainant is also craving for compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. Act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused him mental tension, harassment and agony. In the present set up, mobile hand set is not luxury. Rather it has become a necessity. For a professional like lawyer, availability of mobile hand set with him is essential. In these circumstances, complainant deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs. 1,000/-.<br /> 7. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 8. In the premises written above, complaint is allowed exparte against the opposite parties with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :<br /> i) Complainant would return the mobile hand set purchased by him through bill copy of which is Ex. C-2 against receipt to opposite party No. 1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> ii) In case mobile hand set is returned as referred to above and even if offer for return is given within 15 days but the hand set is not received by opposite party No. 1, opposite parties would replace the hand set or pay the price thereof alongwith interest @9% P.A. from 20.11.07 till payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of the old mobile hand set from the complainant or from the date of refusal to receive it.<br /> iii) Pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act.<br /> Compliance regarding cost and compensation be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the amount of compensation under Section 14(1)(d) would carry interest @9% P.A. till payment.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be consigned to record room. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 31-03-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member