BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.84 of 2015

Date of Instt. 05.03.2015

Date of Decision :01.06.2015

Akbar aged about 20 years son of Mugal-E-Azam R/o H.No.21, Village Badshahpur, Tehsil & District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. D.T.Electronics Pvt Ltd, Importer of Gionee Mobiles, Registered Office 363-364, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its MD/Authorized Signatory.

2. Shree Communication, Authorized Service Centre of Gionee Mobiles, Shop No.65, 1st Floor, GS Bajwa Complex, Nakodar Road, Opp.Friends Bakery, Jalandhar through its Manager/Authorized Representative.

3. H.S.Khurana Enterprises through its Authorized Signatory, Nakodar Road, Link Road, Khambra, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Akash Batra, Auth.Rep. for opposite parties No.1 & 2.

Opposite party No.3 exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a mobile handset of Gionee Company model Elife E3 black having IMEI No.862365029361080 from the opposite party No.3 which is authorized agent/retailer of opposite party No.1 and paid Rs.12,000/- in cash with one year warranty on 30.10.2014. The opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of Gionee Mobile having trade mark Gionee carrying on business throughout India including Jalandhar and opposite party No.2 is approved and authorized service centre under the care and supervision and the administrative control of opposite party No.1. When the complainant started using the mobile phone then he faced the problem in touch of the mobile phone and the complainant visited the opposite party No.2 on 26.12.2014 and stated that problem to the representative of opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.2 booked the handset and stated to the complainant to come on next day and when the complainant visited the service centre on next day, the opposite party delivered the set to the complainant. It is mentioned that at the time of delivery of handset, the opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that touch of the handset was replaced with new one but again after two days the same problem occurred in the handset and the complainant again visited the opposite party on 2.1.2015, then the engineer of the opposite party told the complainant that touch in the handset is duplicate and they refused to book the handset and also refused to repair the same. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay the price of the mobile handset. He has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite party No.3 did not appear and as such it was proceeded against exparte. However, Sh.Akash Batra, Authorized Representative of opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared and made a statement on 24.4.2015 that they are ready to give new mobile handset to the complainant and do not want to file written statement and to tender any evidence.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed evidence.

4. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and authorized representative of opposite parties No.1 & 2.

5. The complainant purchased the mobile handset from opposite party No.3 vide retail invoice dated 30.10.2014 Ex.C1 for Rs.12,000/-. According to the complainant, soon after purchase, he faced problem in the touch screen of the mobile handset and he visited the service centre but it failed to rectify the defect. Although in the complaint, the complainant has mentioned that mobile handset is still lying with opposite party but at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant stated at bar that handset is with complainant. The fact that authorized representative of opposite parties No.1 & 2 stated that they are ready to give new mobile handset clearly prove that mobile handset sold to the complainant was defective and beyond repair.

6. So in the above circumstances, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.1 and 2 are directed to give new mobile handset of the same make and model to the complainant with fresh warranty in lieu of old one or in the alternative to refund its price to him. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

01.06.2015 Member Member President