BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Gurtej Singh, Village Baran, Tehsil and District Patiala.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1.       Dell India Pvt. Ltd., through its Dell authorized Service Centre, SCO No.477-478, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

2.       National Watch House, SCO No.1031, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its proprietor.

                                                ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                    PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL               MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by:    Complainant in person

                        Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OP No.1.

                        OP No.2 already exparte.

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.           Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a mobile set of Dell Aero from OP No.2 for Rs.11,500/- vide invoice No.2630 dated 24.6.2011. It is the case of the complainant that the mobile set worked for about 2 months and, thereafter, its touch pad stopped working. The complainant approached the Dell Authorized Service Centre, Sector 35, Chandigarh and after checking the set, it kept the same vide job sheet dated 12.10.2011. The complainant made repeated visits and calls to the service centre but no positive response was received. Ultimately, the complainant sent a notice to the OPs on 11.11.2011 but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2.           OP No.1 filed the reply, wherein, it has been admitted that the mobile set was purchased from OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.11,500/-. That the complainant approached the service centre of OP No.1 for repair of the mobile set. That the service centre did not have sufficient number of touch pad units available. It has been further pleaded that the unit had reached the service centre of OP No.1 on 13.12.2011 and requested the complainant to come and collect the mobile handset but he was not ready to accept it as he wants to settle the matter legally. The complainant never called the toll free number of OP No.1 to register a complaint nor sent an e-mail with regard to the problems faced by him. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on its part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.  

3.           OP No.2 did not appear despite due service as such it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.12.2011.

4.           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.           We have heard the complainant in person and the learned Counsel for OP No.1 and have also perused the record.

6.           It was submitted by the complainant that he purchased a mobile set of Dell Aero from OP No.2 for Rs.11,500/- vide invoice No.2630 dated 24.6.2011 – Annexure C-1. It was further submitted that the mobile set worked for about 2 months and, thereafter, its touch pad stopped working. Thus, he approached the OP No.1, who in turn, retained the mobile set with it vide job sheet dated 12.10.2011 – Annexure C-2 for the purposes of repair. It was lastly argued that he made repeated visits and calls to OP No.1 but no positive response was received.

7.           The learned Counsel for OP No.1 argued that admittedly, the complainant purchased the mobile set from OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.11,500/-. He further argued that the complainant approached the service centre of OP No.1 for repair of the mobile set. It was lastly argued that the request was made to the complainant to collect the mobile set but he did not accept it as he wanted to get the matter settled by the court.

8.           It is an admitted fact that the mobile set was purchased by the complainant from OP No.2 for Rs.11,500/-. It is also an admitted fact that OP No.1 retained the mobile set to rectify the defect in it. It is also an admitted fact that OP No.1 is ready to handover the repaired mobile set to the complainant.

9.           The OP No.1 has raised the plea that the request was made to the complainant to collect the mobile set but he did not accept it. To substantiate the said fact, the complainant had not produced any evidence.

10.         Now, it is proved on record that OP No.1 made an offer to the complainant to hand over the repaired mobile set after the filing of the complaint, as such, he is entitled for compensation and litigation costs.

11.         As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and OP No.1 is directed to return the defect free mobile set to the complainant, free of charges with one year warranty from the date of delivery of the mobile set in question to the complainant. OP No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation.

12.         This order be complied with by OP No.1 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OP No.1 shall be liable to refund the awarded amount to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, till its realization, besides Rs.2,000/- as litigation costs.

13.         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.