Haryana

Ambala

CC/100/2015

Sunil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dashing Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

In person.

20 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM :AMBALA

                             Complaint Case No.           :         100  OF 2015

                             Date of Institution                :         15-04-2015

                             Date of Decision                  :         20.11.2015

 

Sunil Kumar son of Sh. Prabh Dyal, resident of village Chaduni Jattaan, Tehsil Shahbad, Distt.Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                                                            :::::::Complainant.

                                                                                           Versus

1. DASHING MOBILE WORLD, Opposite Indian Bank, Near Jagadhri Gate, Ambala City,Distt. Ambala through its owner.

 

2. Authorised Service Centre, Nanak Telecom, Shop No.7, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt.

 

3. Customer Care Executive, Spice Mobility Ltd. S Global  Knowledge park 19 A & 19 B Sector- 125, Noida, 201301 (U.P.) India through its Director.

 :::::::Opposite Parties.

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:             SH.A.K.SARDANA, PRESIDENT

                             SH. PUSHPINDER KUMAR, MEMBER

 

Present:-             Complainant in person

                             OP No.1 ex-parte.

                             Defence of OP No.2 & 3 struck off                  

O R D E R

1.           Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased Spice M1550  Mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 911327600143163 vide cash memo No.3183 dated 17/7/2014 in a sum of Rs.10,500/- from OP No.1. After 17 days, the said mobile phone started problems of Touch Auto Works, hang problem and handset showing boot mode etc., so, the complainant visited the OP for its rectification where they retained the mobile set of the complainant for some days and returned the same with some problems which were again deposited with OP No.2 service centre but of no use. Thereafter, matter was reported to OP no.3 who in turn advised to OP No.2 service centre to replace the mobile set of complainant whereupon OP no.2 handed over swap set spice MI-600  to complainant having IMEI  No. 911319501412144 on 1-10-2014 which also not functioned properly and thereafter the same was again deposited with OP No.2 service centre with the problems of ‘Display picture not clear, Headphone jack problem and WI-FI not working properly’ vide job sheet dated 31.10.2014 which was neither rectified nor replaced by OP which is admittedly a deficiency in service and  unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

 

2.          Upon notice, OP No. 2 & 3 appeared through counsel Sh. Rohin Kumar, Advocate, Ambala by filling power of attorney whereas OP No.1 did not bother to appear despite service and as such he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 5-6-2015. But after availing several opportunities, OP No.2 & 3 also failed to file reply to the complaint and as such their defence was also ordered to be struck off vide order dated 9.7.2015.           

 

3.           To prove his version, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C -X alongwith documents as Annexures C-1  to  C-5 and closed his evidence.

 

4.                We have heard the complainant and gone through the case file minutely. The main grievance of the complainant is that he purchased the mobile set in question on 17-7-2014  for Rs.10,500/- from OP No.1 with a warranty of one year and only after 17 days, the mobile  phone started creating  problems and  for rectification of the same, complainant visited the service centre of OP at Ambala Cantt where the said mobile phone retained by them for its rectification repeatedly  vide job sheets dt. 19/8/2014, 31/10/2014 and 26/12/2014 respectively but they neither repaired the same nor replaced with new one resulting into preferring of said complaint before the forum.

 

5.                After hearing the complainant and going through the record, it is crystal clear from the document Annexure C-1 that the mobile set in question of Spice Company was purchased by complainant vide bill Annexure C-1 having a warranty of one year from the date of its purchase and it became defective repeatedly during the warranty period as revealed from documents Annexure C-2 to Annexure C-5 i.e. job sheets  dated 19/8/2014, 31/10/2014 and 26/12/2014 issued by the OP service center which was neither rectified nor replaced by Ops inspite of repeated requests made to Ops. Further, the contention of complainant goes unrebutted as OPs No.2 & 3 did not bother to contest the matter despite appearance through counsel whereas on the other hand the complainant has corroborated his version by tendering  his affidavit as Annexure C-X.

 

                   So, from the above discussed facts, we have come to the conclusion that mobile set retained by the OP service centre from the complainant was having inherent defect from its very beginning and the same could not be rectified by the OPs during the warranty period despite various visits of the complainant. Hence, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by OP. Accordingly we accept the complaint and direct the Ops No. 2 & 3 to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

 

                (i)         to return Rs.10,500/- i.e. cost of the mobile set to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its purchase to till its realization.

               (ii)         to  pay  Rs. 3000/- as  compensation  for  harrasment and mental agony etc.

             (iii)           also to pay Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation.

 

 

 

Let the aforesaid order/directions issued above must be complied with by the Ops No.2 & 3  within a stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is decided in above terms. A copy of this order be sent to all the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced:20.11.2015                                                                    Sd/-     

                                                                                             ( A.K.SARDANA)

                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

                                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                              ( PUSHPINDER KUMAR )

                                                                                                     MEMBER