BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.11 of 2015

Date of Instt. 12.01.2015

Date of Decision :10.04.2015

Parshant Bahri aged about 40 years son of Sushil Bahri, R/o ND-152, Bikrampura, 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. Mobile Point through its Authorized Signatory, ND-137, Bikrampura, Near Chowk Adda Tanda, 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.Gagandeep Adv., counsel for OPs 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 Pioneer-P1 black having IMEI No.860244026320 716 from the opposite party No.3 who is authorized agent/retailer of opposite party No.1 and paid Rs.5100/- in cash with one year warranty on 27.1.2014. 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 start using the mobile phone then he faced the problem in call receiving i.e when the complainant tried to receive the call, then the handset sometimes hanged and at the same time, the date in the memory card automatically transferred in the mobile and the mobile started to give error of memory full/low space and the complainant visited the opposite party No.2 and stated the problem to the representative of opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.2 booked the handset and stated the complainant to visit after 15 days and when the complainant visited the service centre after 15 days, then they again said that to come after another 15 days and the complainant when again visited after 15 days i.e one month, then the opposite party No.2 told the complainant to sit for one hour as they have to reinstall the software but the complainant never got the solution for the problem in the handset and received the handset as they opposite party No.2 stated that the phone is having no problem as the software in the handset is reinstalled. It is also necessary to mention that handset was again giving the same problem for two times and they have again done the same repair and returned the mobile to the complainant. Again on 27.10.2014 the complainant found the same problem, then the representative of the opposite party No.2 told the complainant that complainant has to wait for 15 days for the solution of said problem and the opposite party No.2 issued job sheet No.GC14A049431 dated 27.10.2014 to the complainant and told the complainant to receive the handset after 15 days. After 15 days, the complainant approached the opposite parties but the opposite parties has not rectified the mobile and has not returned the mobile to the complainant till date. The complainant even sent an email to the opposite parties on 7.12.2014 but till date the opposite parties have not given any response to the said email. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile handset. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice Sh.Akash Batra, Authorized Representative of opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and made a statement on 19.3.2015 that they are ready to give new mobile handset to the complainant and are not to file any written statement.

3. Opposite party No.3 did not appear inspite of notice and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to C3 and closed evidence

5 We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. The complainant purchased the handset in question from opposite party No.3 vide retail invoice dated 27.1..2014 Ex.C1 for Rs.5100/-. According to the complainant after purchase, the mobile handset developed defect and it was given to the service centre i.e opposite party No.2 but it failed to rectify the defect nor the handset has been returned to him. The fact that authorized representative of opposite parties No.1 and 2 has suffered statement that they are ready to give new mobile handset to the complainant clearly suggest that mobile handset sold to the complainant was having some manufacturing defect and was beyond repair. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 offered to give new mobile handset to the complainant only after he has filed the present complaint.

7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted against opposite parties No.1 & 2 and they are directed to give new mobile handset of the same make and model to the complainant or in the alternative to refund its price to him within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is further 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 Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

10.04.2015 Member Member President