Punjab

Sangrur

CC/333/2016

Baldev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chhabra Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Amit Aggarwal

15 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  333

                                                Instituted on:    22.03.2016

                                                Decided on:       15.09.2016

 

Baldev Kumar son of Shri Pritam Lal, # 159, Partap Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Chhabra Communication, Opp. Bus Stand Sangrur through its Prop/Partner.

2.             Punjab Mobiles, Gionee Care, Gaushala Road, Near Railway Chowk, Sangrur through its Prop/Partner.

3.             Gionee Syuntech Technology Pvt. Ltd. E-9, Block No. B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-op. Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Amit Aggarwal, Adv.

For OPs                    :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

               

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Baldev Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one mobile phone model Gionee F-103 bearing IMEI number 867865020558662  from OP number 1  for Rs.10,000/- vide invoice number 4056 dated 21.09.2015 with one year warranty of the mobile set against any manufacturing defect or poor workmanship. It is further averred in the complaint that from the beginning the above said mobile set is not working proper and has various problems such as hanging, network problems etc and the battery back up of the said mobile is very poor. It is further averred that the complainant approached the Ops so many times, but all in vain.  Further it is stated that after a period of five months the mobile set started to give another problem ‘not responding the touch’, which disturbed the complainant too much.  Further case of the complainant is that the complainant and his friend Rakesh Kalra again visited the service centre of the OPs on 11.3.2016, but he refused to entertain the complaint of the complainant.  Thus, it is stated that the complainant has been harassing in the hands of the OPs.  As such,  alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.10,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 1 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 was proceeded exparte. But, later on  OP number 2 and 3 were also proceeded exparte.

 

3.             In reply filed by OPs number 2 and 3, the sale and purchase of the mobile set in question is admitted. However, the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.  It is stated that the complainant never approached the service centre of the OPs nor the Ops issued any job sheet as the complainant never approached the Ops for any problem. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of bill, Ex.C-2 affidavit of Baldev Kumar, Ex.C-3 affidavit of Rakesh Kalra, Ex.C-4 affidavit of Saurav Kumar and Ex.C-5 expert report dated 15.3.2016 and closed evidence.  No evidence has been produced on record by any of the OPs.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-1 is the copy of the invoice issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.10,000/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 1, which has been manufactured by OP number 3, whereas the OP number 2 is the service centre of the OP number 1.  It is further an admitted fact of the complainant that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant became defective during the warranty period and suffered the problems of hanging, network and of not responding of the touch of the mobile set. Further it is an admitted fact of the Ops that the mobile set in question was having one year warranty against any of the defects.  It is worth mentioning here that the OP number 2 and 3 though filed the written reply only, but thereafter no evidence has been led nor filed any sworn affidavit to support the allegations levelled in the written reply.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they did not produce any evidence. It is worth mentioning here that even after filing the written reply, the Ops number 2 and 3 failed to appear and they were also proceeded exparte. To support the allegations of the complainant, he has produced his own affidavit Ex.C-2 and further the affidavits of Rakesh Kalra Ex.C-3 and also an affidavit of Shri Saurav Kumar proprietor of Saurav Communication, Gaushala Road, Sangrur, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that after checking the mobile set he found that there is problem of ‘not responding the touch’ in the mobile set, meaning thereby it is clear that the mobile set in question suffered defects even during the warranty period.  Moreover, the Ops remained to chose exparte and even did not make any offer to set right the mobile set in question.  In the circumstances, it is clear that the mobile set in question supplied to the complainant is defective one and we further find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs number 2 and 3 to replace the complainant a new mobile set of the same make and model or in the alternative to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- being the cost of the mobile set along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 22.03.2016 till realisation.  The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2500/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 15, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                  (Sarita Garg)

                                                         Member