Punjab

Sangrur

CC/515/2016

Sandeep Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chhabra Communications - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Amit Aggarwal

19 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                       

                                                Complaint No.  515

                                                Instituted on:    30.08.2016

                                                Decided on:       19.12.2016

 

Sandeep Arora son of Shri Surinder Kumar, # 90, J.P.Colony, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

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

2.             Punjab Communication, 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

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

               

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Sandeep Arora, 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 867865020558605  from OP number 1  for Rs.10,000/- vide invoice number 4049 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 properly 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 ‘handset not charging’, which disturbed the complainant too much.  Further case of the complainant is that the complainant again visited the service centre of the OPs and the OP number 2 repaired the set and returned the complainant. Again on 20.7.2016, the complainant visited Op number 2, who issued the job sheet in this regard and retained the mobile set, but after ten days the OP number 2 told that he has made every effort to remove the defect, but the mobile set is suffering from manufacturing defect.  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 unsigned 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, it has been admitted that the complainant visited the OP on 20.7.2016 regarding the charging problem in the mobile set and returned the same after rectification of the problem.  Further 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 affidavit of Damanjit Singh, Ex.C-2 affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-3 copy of bill, Ex.C-4 copy of job sheet, Ex.C-5 expert report 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-3 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 handset not charging 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 expert Damanjit Singh Ex.C-1 alongwith his report Ex.C-5, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that after checking the mobile set he found that there is problem of ‘handset not charging’ meaning thereby it is clear that the mobile set in question suffered defects even during the warranty period, which the Ops failed to rectify.  Moreover, the Ops chose to remain exparte and even did not make any offer to set right the mobile set in question nor filed any proper reply.  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 defective mobile set of the complainant with a new mobile set of the same make and model.  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.

                December 19, 2016.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

 

 

                                                  (Sarita Garg)

                                                     Member

 

 

 

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                           Member