DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.

CC.No.255 of 21-06-2013

Decided on 27-09-2013

Dilpreet Singh, aged about 20 years S/o Vikramjit Singh R/o House No.61, Phase 3, Model Town, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Blackberry India Pvt. Ltd., Head Office at No.76, Udyog Vihar 1, Gurgaon.

2.Singh Infosystem, Shop No.10, first floor, AC Market, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Prop./Partner.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Opposite parties ex-parte.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The instant complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an ’Act’). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased one mobile handset Blackberry 9860, bearing IMEI No.357826041292985 from SK Enterprises 4693, Hospital Bazaar, Bathinda, the authorized dealer of the opposite party No.1 for Rs.20,500/- vide invoice No.0763 dated 5.4.2012 with 18 months warranty. The performance of the said mobile handset was good for the first 3 months, but thereafter it was unsatisfactory. The mobile handset in question did not work properly, at times it remained in dead condition, sometimes hanged and sometime it faced great problem of charging. The complainant complained the opposite party No.2 regarding the abovesaid defects in the said mobile handset, it repaired the same through the opposite party No.1 but no job sheet was issued to him. The problem in the said mobile handset re-occurred on dated 4.5.2013, the complainant again complained the opposite party No.2, the opposite parties retained the said mobile handset with the promise to rectify the same and conveyed the complainant that the said mobile mobile handset be sent to Bangalore as it is not repairable in Bathinda. The opposite parties further conveyed the complainant that the defect in the said mobile handset neither be removed nor the said mobile handset be replaced. The opposite party No.2 returned the said mobile handset to the complainant on dated 12.6.2013 without repair. The opposite parties have not agreed either to replace the said mobile handset or to refund its amount with interest. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties either to replace the old mobile handset with new one or to refund its amount i.e. Rs.20,500/- alongwith interest, cost and compensation.

2. Registered notice has been sent to the opposite party No.1 on dated 8.8.2013 vide postal receipt No.A RP276426068IN and the opposite party No.2 is served by hand but none appeared on behalf of both the opposite parties before this Forum despite receiving the summons, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against both the opposite parties.

3. The complainant has led ex-parte evidence to support his allegations. He has produced Ex.C1 his own affidavit dated 13.6.2013; Ex.C2 photocopy of certificate; Ex.C3 photocopy of service job sheet; Ex.C4 photocopy of retail invoice and Ex.C5 his own affidavit dated 24.9.2013.

4. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel of the complainant heard at length. Record alongwith written submission submitted by the learned counsel of the complainant perused.

5. The averment of the complainant is that he purchased one mobile handset Blackberry 9860, bearing IMEI No.357826041292985 from SK Enterprises 4693, Hospital Bazaar, Bathinda, the authorized dealer of the opposite party No.1 for Rs.20,500/- vide invoice No.0763 dated 5.4.2012 with 18 months warranty. The said mobile handset worked properly for the first 3 months, but thereafter it started creating problems as the said mobile handset was not working properly and remained in dead condition, sometimes hanged and sometime it faced great problem of charging. Repeated complaints were made by the complainant to the opposite party No.2, it never issued any job sheet to him. The said mobile handset was rectified by the opposite party No.2 but the same went out of order and became dead on 4.5.2013 and the complaint was again made with the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 told the complainant that as this mobile handset cannot be repaired at Bathinda, it is required to be sent at Bangalore. The opposite party No.2 returned the said mobile handset to the complainant on dated 12.6.2013 without repair. The complainant requested the opposite party No.2 either to replace the said mobile handset or to refund its amount but the opposite party No.2 refused to accede to his request.

6. The service centre i.e. opposite party No.2, Singh Infosystems has issued the certificate dated 12.6.2013, Ex.C2, to the complainant to the effect that:-

“It is certified that model 9860, IMEI No.357826041292985, RMA No.RM02074271 was sent to Bangalore for further diagnosis, after diagnosis it is verified the handset is found under physical damage as the report with photographs received from Bangalore. The handset is in unrepairable condition, will be replaced on charges basis.”

The job sheet dated 4.5.2013, Ex.C3 shows the ’problem narration:-Touch unresponsive headphone jack problem overheating issue hanging issue WIFI disconnected automatically’. A further perusal of Ex.C3 shows that the said mobile handset was within the warranty period and expected return date is mentioned in this job sheet is 19.5.2013.

7. The complainant has purchased the mobile handset in question on 5.4.2012 and the problem in the said mobile handset occurred after 3 months of its purchase. The complainant approached time and again to the opposite party No.2 to get the repair of the said mobile handset but no job sheet has been issued to him by the opposite party No.2. The complainant has specifically averred that for his earlier repair no job sheet has been issued to him. Moreover a perusal of Ex.C3 shows that the defects are regarding unresponsive headphone, jack problem, overheating, WIFI disconnect automatically. The service centre opposite party No.2 issued the certificate but nothing is mentioned about the problems reported by the complainant in his mobile handset. It has been mentioned that the handset found physical damage. As nothing has been mentioned in the job sheet dated 4.5.2013, Ex.C3 regarding the physical damage the inference can be drawn by the certificate, Ex.C2, that physical damage if any has occurred during the transit or on the part of the opposite party No.2 itself. Thus we are of the opinion that the opposite parties were unable to rectify the defect in the said mobile handset, there must be some irrepairable defect in the said mobile handset.

8. The opposite parties have not intentionally appeared before this Forum as the fact regarding the defective mobile handset of the complainant was well within their knowledge. In order to run away from their liability, the opposite parties have proceeded ex-parte. The non-appearance of the opposite parties in this Forum, further proves the deficiency in service on their part, thus this complaint is accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite parties with the further direction to refund the amount of Rs.20,500/- to the complainant and at the same time the complainant will handover the old mobile handset to the opposite parties.

9. The compliance of this order be done jointly and severally by the opposite parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

10. In case of non-compliance the amount of Rs.20,500/- will carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization.

11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum

27-09-2013

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member