Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/136/2018

SANJEEV SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

CEO CHINESE MOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

ZA QUAZI

21 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

(Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No.:                479/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution   :    08-03-2018

 Date of Decision      :     13-11-2018

 

Sanjeev Singh,

S/O Sh.Mohan Lal,

R/O H.No.504-A,4^th Floor,

Tawi Apartments,Sidhra,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                                Complainant

                       V/S

1.The Director & CEO

Comio Chinese Mobile,

Topwise Communications 2^nd Floor,

A-32,S-4 ,Mohan Co-operative Indl.

Estate Badarpur Road, New Delhi-110076.

2.Mahajan Mobile Care,(Service Centre)

 Vivekanand Chowk,Prem Nagar,

Near PNB ATM,Jammu.

3.M/S Dutta Communications (Distributor)

  Main Chowk,Rehari Chungi,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                                Opposite parties

   CORAM:-

                  Khalil Choudhary              (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                               Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                                        Member

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer Protection Act 1987.

                                                        

 Mr.Z.A.Qazi,Advocate for complainant, present.

Nemo for Ops.

                                                                   

                                   ORDER

                         Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that; complainant purchased one Comio Mobile i.e.Comio C-2,4G Volt vide IMEINo.91168934050187 & S.IMEI No.911589350500195 vide invoice No.123 dated 26-12-2017 from OP4 for sale consideration of Rs.7,200/-copy of bill is annexed with the complaint Annexure-A).According to complainant the handset was functioning properly for some time, but there was voice problem in the handset ,no call pick up at the time of incoming call because the pickup site/button was not functioning properly. Besides the mother board of the handset was not functioning properly and internet was not functioning properly because the data signals have not shown on the screen of the handset, complainant approached OP4 and requested for repairing or replacement of the same. That thereafter OP4 requested to approach OP2 and the complainant submitted handset to OP2 and the OP2 retained the handset for about 2 ½ hours for repairing and after rebate of  2 1/2 hours OP No.2 has returned the handset to him after repairing, but after rectifying the problem has not been removed in the handset. Allegation of complainant is that he again approached OP4 and apprised about the problem and OP4 sent the complaint to OP3 and OP3 retained the handset, but has returned the same without repair. Complainant further submitted that he repeatedly approached OPs for rectification of defects, but it failed to remove the defects, and same, according to complainant were manufacturing in nature, therefore, in the final analysis, for deficiency in service, complainant prays for refund of cost of handset to the tune of Rs.7,200/-  and in addition, prays for compensation under different heads to the tune of Rs.20,000/-

                   On the other hand,OP1 filed written version and denied all the allegations in toto.

                               Notices alongwith copies of complaint were sent to OPs 2,3&4 through registered cover but despite lapse of statutory period, the OPs 2,3&4 have not taken any action to represent their case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period, provided under the Act. Thereafter the right of OPs 2,3&4 to file reply was closed vide order dated,18-04-2018 and 27-04-2018 and complainant was directed to adduce evidence by way of affidavits in support of his case.

                  Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit. Complainant has placed on record, copy of tax invoice and copy of legal notice.

               Although OP1 filed written version, but after availing numerous opportunities failed to lead any evidence,so,the right of OP1 to file evidence was closed vide order dated,16-10-2018.Therefore,unsubstantiated averments contained in the written version of OP1 cannot overweigh the evidence lead by the complainant.

                 We have perused case file and heard L/C appearing for the complainant at length.

                 Briefly stated case of complainant is that he purchased one Comio Mobile i.e.Comio C-2,4G Volt on,26-12-2017 from OP4 for sale consideration of Rs.7,200/ According to complainant the handset was functioning properly for some time, but there was voice problem in the handset, no call pick up at the time of incoming call because the pickup site/button was not functioning properly. Besides the mother board of the handset was not functioning properly and internet was not functioning properly because the data signals have not shown on the screen of the handset, complainant approached OP4 and requested for repairing or replacement of the same. That thereafter OP4 requested to approach OP2 and the complainant submitted handset to OP2 and the OP2 retained the handset for about 2 ½ hours for repairing and after rebate of  2 1/2 hours OP No.2 has returned the handset to him after repairing, but after rectifying the problem has not been removed in the handset. Allegation of complainant is that he again approached OP4 and apprised about the problem and OP4 sent the complaint to OP3 and OP3 retained the handset, but has returned the same without repair. Complainant further submitted that he repeatedly approached OPs for rectification of defects, but it failed to remove the defects.

                          In order to substantiate his allegations, complainant filed his own duly sworn evidence affidavit. Complainant has reiterated the contents of complaint, therefore, same need no repetition. On the other hand, despite OP1 was granted ample opportunities to support its version by leading evidence, but it failed to lead iota of evidence in support of its version.Therefore,version of OP1 went unsubstantiated, unsupported and uncorroborated by cogent evidence, so much so, written version filed by OP1 is also not supported by affidavit of OP,therefore,same being bereft of  legal strength, hence, cannot be read in evidence.

                  This is a case of deficiency in service. The Ops 2,3&4 despite service of notice, sent by the Forum through registered cover have not taken any action to represent the case before this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant, or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by the Ops 2,3&4 in this complaint and there is also no evidence in rebuttal. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 2(b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1987, which provides that in a case, where the OPs 2,3&4 omits or fails to take any action to represent their case within the time given by Forum, in that situation, the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-clause (ii) of the Section 11, clearly provides that even where the OPs 2,3&4 omits or fails to taken any action to represent their case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

                  In addition complainant has also supported the averments contained in the complaint by duly sworn his own affidavit which is corroborative of the facts contained in the complaint. From perusal of averments contained in the complaint, affidavit of complainant and documents placed on record, it is manifestly clear that from the very beginning, handset started giving trouble,whereas,despite repeated requests to Ops the handset could not be made workable,therefore,in our opinion once high-end hand set purchased by complainant,obviously,without any rhyme or reason, question of grouse, regarding fault of handset would not have arisen, instead of making use of it. Rather we think Ops should have redressed grievance of complainant, who spent such huge money and banked upon such multinational brand, but it seems that instead of well coming the consumer,Ops have chosen to multiply  suffering, which of course is unwarranted and unexpected from such brand. Therefore, in the light of unrebutted averments contained in the complaint and documents on record, we are of the opinion that complainant successfully made out a case of deficiency in service by Ops.

                      Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and Ops are directed to replace the handset or in the alternative refund the cost of handset to the tune of Rs.7,200/- to the complainant, who shall return the mobile phone, alongwith accessories to Ops. Complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.5000/-for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.5 000/-, respectively. The Ops  shall comply the order, within one month, from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties, as per requirement of the Act. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                                    Khalil Choudhary

                                                                                     (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

                                                                                            President

Announced                                                           District Consumer Forum

    13-11-2018                                                                       Jammu.

 

Agreed by                                                                

                                                                           

Ms.Vijay Angral                                              

 Member    

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member