Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/585/2016

Shiv Prakash Khandelwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Customer Service Head Microsoft Co-Operation (I) Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Vivek Mohan Sharma Adv.

09 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	585 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	11.08.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	09.06.2017

 

 

 

 

Shiv Prakash Khandelwal son of Sh.Deen Dayal Khandelwal, presently residing at House No.#1366-A, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh.  

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Customer Service Head Microsoft Co-operation (I) Pvt. Ltd., 10^th Floor B & DLF Building No.5, Epitome (Cyber City DLF Phase-III), Gurgaon, Haryana.

2]  Electra Care Quiet Office No.11, Sector 35-A, Opposite Khukhiran Bhawan, Chandigarh.

3]  Mobile Connector, SCO No.2473-74, 2^nd Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.    

                               ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Sh.V.M.Sharma, Counsel for the complainant

 Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant purchased one mobile phone of Nokia Lumia 830 (Black) for a sum of Rs.26,500/- from M/s.Aadidev International (Nokia Priority Partner) on 8.2.2015 with one year warranty (Ann.A).  It is stated that in July, 2015, the mobile in question encountered with some camera problem, so it was deposited with OP No.2/authorised service centre, who returned it after a month.  Thereafter, the complainant started facing new problems in the mobile handset viz hanging, call menu not responding, signal lost after a while, so it was again deposited with OP No.2 on 14.9.2015 against job sheet Ann.B, but even after a month, the problem could not be sorted out by OP No.2 and asked the complainant to take the mobile phone to OP No.3.  Then the mobile handset was deposited with OP No.3 for repair, who returned it after about one month and that too without rectifying the defects in the mobile properly.  It is stated that the mobile handset was again taken to OP No.3 in Nov., 2015 and this time OP No.3 replaced the mother board of the mobile handset and provided new IMEI number to the complainant.  However, even then, the defect in the mobile phone could not be fixed and therefore, the complainant refused to accept the defective handset.  It is also stated that the OP No.3 informed the complainant that they had swapped the defective mobile handset with new one, but it was found that only IMEI number has been changed again.  It is submitted that the complainant was again returned the defective mobile handset by OP No.3 and the defects in the mobile handset was not fixed by OP No.3.  It is also submitted that from the date of purchase, the complainant had submitted his mobile handset for about 4/5 times with the OPs for rectification of the defect, but each time the complainant was returned the defective mobile handset and the OPs have failed to find out a permanent solution of the problems in the mobile.  Even the request of the complainant for replacing the defective handset with new one or to refund its price, did not yield any result. It is pleaded that the complainant lastly deposited his mobile handset with Opposite Party NO.3 on 24.11.2015 but till date the same has not been received back.  Alleging the above act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, hence this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply stating that the complainant approached OP NO.2 on 14.9.2015 i.e. after more than seven months of purchase and the mobile was returned to the complainant after updation of the software. The software of the said handset was updated free of cost within the warranty period.  It is stated that the handset was thoroughly checked and it was found on every occasions that the software of the set was infected with virus due to heavy downloading and the same was removed by updating the software and the set was returned to the complainant.  It is submitted that the complainant then approached OP No.3 on 24.11.2015 with problem of not being able to make or receive calls and the mobile handset was duly replaced within warranty on 24.11.2015 and thereafter the complainant never approached the service centre for any type of repair.  It is pleaded that the mobile of the complainant was swapped/replaced towards his satisfaction.  It is also pleaded that the warranty of the mobile stood expired on 7.2.2016 and this complaint has been filed on 9.8.2016. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the complainant has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by OPs.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       It is a proved fact that the complainant purchased one mobile phone Nokia Lumia 830 (Black) from M/s Aadidev International (Nokia Priority Partner) on 8.2.2015 by paying an amount of Rs.26,500/- (Ann.A). 

 

7]       It is an admitted fact by the Opposite Parties that the mobile phone in question has been repaired by them two/three times. It is also established from Service Job Sheet, dated 14.9.2015 and Service Job Sheet dated 24.11.2015 (Ann.B & C) that the IMEI Number of the mobile phone of the complainant have been changed twice, which further proves that the mobile phone of the complainant has been replaced with defective handsets. It is undisputed that the request of the complainant for replacement of the mobile handset with brand new mobile or refund the price thereof has been rejected by the OPs.

 

8]       The complainant alleges that despite changing of mother board and IMEI number has been changed twice, the handset is still not functioning well and his grievance raised for its rectification and request made for the refund/replacement has not been entertained by the OPs.  The plea of the complainant, as taken in the rejoinder, that the handset in question still in the custody of the OPs, has not been controverted by the Opposite Parties with any cogent evidence.  On the contrary the evidence in the shape of Job Card and e-mails and legal notice collectively established that the handset in question is having inherent manufacturing defect.

9]       We feel that the complainant who has spent huge amount of Rs.26,500/- on the purchase of mobile handset in question for its peaceful enjoyment, has been deprived of from his valuable right.  An adverse inference is also drawn against the Opposite Parties as no service record with regard to the handset in question has been brought on record by the OPs to clarify the matter. Thus, we deem it proper that the complainant be refunded his hard earned money by the OPs.

 

10]      From the observations made in the preceding paragraphs, it is clearly established that the mobile phone in question is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect.  Thus it is proved that the complainant has been supplied a defective product. Hence, the deficiency in service on the part of OPs is writ large.

 

11]      In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed against OPs.  The Opposite Parties are jointly & severally directed as under:-

1. To refund an amount of Rs.26,500/-being the invoice price of the mobile phone in question, to the complainant,
2. To pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing him mental & physical harassment for deficiency in service;
3. To pay litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-

 

         This order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OPs shall also be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of filing complaint till realization, apart from complying with the directions as at sub-para (i) & (iii) above.

        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

9^th June, 2017              

 

                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

 

 (RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER