Haryana

Kurukshetra

238/2017

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

DBM - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

02 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.238 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 03.11.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:02.07.2018.

Kuldeep Singh son of Sh. Ram Sarup, R/o Village Tigri Khalsa Doctor Amin, Tehsil Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra, Mobile No.9812040766.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. DBM Marketing India Pvt. Ltd. Anjaneya Infrastructure, Project No.38 & 39, Soukya Road, Kacheramanahalli, Hoslote Taluka, Bangalore-560067, Karnatka, India.
2. Tara Tele & Mobile, near Sachdeva Hospital, Sector-12, Saini Colony, Slum Area, Sector-12, Karnal-132001, Mobile No.9896551555, 7206726000.
3. Lenova India Pvt. Ltd. ferm Icon Level-2, Doddenakund Village Marathhalli, Outer Ring Road, Marathali Post, Kr. Puram Hobli, Banglore-560037.

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

       

Present:     Complainant in person.

                Op No.1 given up (Vide order dt.18.05.2018.)

                Op No.2 exparte.   

                Sh. Vijay Jinda, Advocate for the OP.No.3.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Kuldeep Singh against DBM Marketing India Pvt. Ltd. and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile set vibe K5 (Gold 16 GB) for a sum of Rs.6999/- from the Ops on 08.09.2016 through online.  It is alleged that the said mobile set became defective within the guarantee period with the problem of motherboard and the complainant deposited the mobile set with the Op No.2 i.e. service centre of Ops on 10.06.2017 but despite several visits of complainant, the Op No.2 did not repair the defective mobile set.  The complainant also sent e-mail to the company but the Ops did not redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the defective mobile set of complainant with the new one and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.3 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 08.12.2017.  The Op No.1 was given-up by the complainant vide his statement recorded on 18.05.2018.  Op No.3 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that at the outset, the answering Op submits that a call was logged with the authorized service centre on December, 27, 2016 vide work order No.:SOIN0232861612270002 reporting power On/Off Issues which was resolved by replacing the motherboard and the handset was restored to good working condition.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             We have heard the complainant in person and ld. counsel for the Op No.3 and perused the record carefully.

5.             From the invoice/cash memo dt. 08.09.2017, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased for the sale consideration of Rs.6999/-.  From the job-sheet dt. 10.06.2017, it is clear that the mobile set became defective within the warranty period.  The complainant has supported his versions by filing his affidavit, copy of cash memo, job-card and copy of e-mail.  There is no rebuttal on the part of Ops.  In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced with the new one from the Op No.3, who is manufacturer of mobile set.

6.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.3 to replace the hand set of the complainant with the new one of the same model.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.3.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.   File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:02.07.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Anamika Gupta)             

                                        Member