BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.283 of 2014

Date of Instt. 19.8.2014

Date of Decision :16.01.2015

Harvinder Kumar aged about 37 years son of Munshi Ram R/o B-IV/95, Parbhat Nagar, Gazi Gulla, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

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

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

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.Nitin Gupta Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Akash Batra, Auth.Rep. for the opposite parties.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a mobile handset of Gionee company mode Elife E3 black having IMEI No.8611690241 1637 from the authorized agent/retailer of opposite party No.1 and paid Rs.14,500/- in cash with one year warranty on 2.12.2013. 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. After one and half months from the purchase of the said mobile, the complainant when inserted the memory card in the handset, then he found that the memory card was not supported by the handset and then the complainant visited the opposite party No.2 and told about the said fact then they received the handset but not issued the job sheet to the complainant and they told the complainant to wait for 15 minutes and they will rectify the defect but the complainant waited for two hours and the opposite party thereafter returned the said mobile to the complainant with the assurance that the handset is now fully repaired and in future no problem would occur in the said mobile. It is also necessary to mention here that the opposite party No.2 never issued any job sheet to the complainant and they simply updated the software of mobile handset and returned the same to the complainant. It is alleged that mobile handset was having again the same problem twice and opposite parties again did the same repair work and returned the mobile handset to the complainant. Again in the first week of July, 2014 the complainant found that there is a problem of touch in the handset and the complainant visited the office of opposite party No.2 for necessary repairs, then the representative of opposite party No.2 told the complainant that complainant has to wait for 7-10 days for the repair of the touch and if the complainant wants to rectify the problem immediately then the complainant has to pay the charges of the same and the problem would be rectified within minutes and then the complainant told the opposite parties that the said mobile is in warranty period but the opposite parties were adamant to give the mobile within 7-10 days. After 10 days they returned the handset to the complainant. Then again on 31.7.2014, the same problem i.e touch problem, memory card not working properly and phone restarts, occurred in the said handset and the complainant again visited the opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.2 issued job sheet No.GC147008118 to the complainant and told the complainant to receive the handset after 3-4 days. On 5.8.2014, the complainant approached the opposite parties and the opposite parties returned the said mobile to the complainant. After receiving the handset, the same problems were still in the handset. On such like averments, complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile handset. He has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, Sh.Akash Batra, Authorized Representative of opposite parties appeared and filed a short written reply pleading that opposite party No.2 is ready and willing to replace the handset with new one.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of document Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, authorized representative for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A and evidence of opposite parties closed by order.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard learned counsel for the complainant and authorized representative of opposite parties.

6. The fact that opposite parties No.1 and 2 are ready to replace the mobile handset with new one clearly suggest that mobile handset in question is having manufacturing defect in it and is beyond repair. The complainant is also entitled to compensation and litigation expenses for the inconvenience caused to him by the defective mobile handset.

7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile handset with new one or in the alternative to refund its price to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is also awarded Rs.2000/- 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 Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

16.01.2015 Member President