BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR
Complaint No.32 of 2016
Date of institution: 28.01.2016
Date of decision: 09.05.2017
Prince aged about 20 years son of Amarnath resident of H. No. 10, Hardev Nagar, Near Green Park, Yamuna Nagar Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. Mobile Number 8950773545.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Duggal Mobile Centre, #4, Mela Singh Chowk, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Proprietor/Partner.
- NET Communication, Shop No. 2, Ist Floor, Near Jain Sons Jewellers, Reliance Gresh Pyara Chowk, Yamuna Nagar-135001 through its Manager/Employee.
- Gionee Mobile, Head Office E-9, Block No.B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its Managing Director. …Respondents.
BEFORE: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.
SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.
SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND………..MEMBER
Present: Sh. Virender Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
Respondents No.1 & 3 already ex-parte. (Sh. Rajesh Service Engineer representative of OP No.3 present.)
None for respondent No.2.
ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)
1. The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.
2. Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased one Gionee Elife 57 White Mobile from respondent No.1 (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs) for a sum of Rs.24,000/- vide bill No. 27909 on dated 23.06.2015. Since the very beginning, the mobile in question did not work properly, started raising some problem like network/charging/application auto back prob./call drop for signal weak/handset not charging etc. Upon which, the complainant immediately reported the matter to Op No.2 on asking of Op No.1 and the official of Op No.2 retained the mobile and assured the complainant that they will try to remove the defects from the mobile set in question and asked the complainant to collect the same after few days. A job sheet bearing No. GC-15B00100793 dated 27.11.2015 (Annexure C-2) was issued to the complainant. After some days when the complainant visited the OP No.2 to collect the mobile set in question, but the Op No.2 totally refused the return the mobile set to the complainant and threatened that if the complainant came at his office then he will face dire consequences. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs. 24,000/- alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.
3. Notice was issued to OP No.1 through process server but he failed to appear despite service, hence, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25.02.2016.
4. Notice was issued to OP No.3 through registered post but none appeared on behalf of Op No.3 despite service, so, OP No.3 was also proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.06.2016.
5. OP No.2 appeared and filed its written statement mentioning therein that the OP No.2 is authorized service centre of OP No.3. Further, it has also been submitted that complainant came to the service centre of Op No.2 with the complaint of Auto off Camera Problem etc. and the OP had sent the mobile set of the complainant to the company for its repair on 20.01.2016 as the same was within warranty. After that, so many calls were made to the complainant to collect the mobile set in question but the complainant has not collected the mobile set in question till yet and the same is still lying with the Op No.2 in working condition. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being matter of record and wrong. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP No.2.
6. In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of bill bearing No. 27909 dated 23.06.2015 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of job sheet dated 27.11.2015 as Annexure C-2 and closed his evidence.
7. On the other hand, OP No.2 failed to adduce any evidence; hence its evidence was closed by court order on dated 21.04.2017.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as representative of OP No.3 Mr. Rajesh, Service Engineer of Gionee Mobile who came to the court today himself and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file.
9. It is not disputed that complainant purchased one Gionee Elife 57 While Mobile from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs. 24,000/- vide bill No. 27909 dated 23.06.2015 which was manufactured by OP No.3 and whose service centre is OP No.2 which is also duly evident from the photo copy of bill Annexure C-1. From the perusal of job sheet bearing No. GC-15B00100793 dated 27.11.2015 (Annexure C-2) it is duly evident that the complainant lodged the problems with the service centre regarding network/charging/application auto back prob./call drop for signal weak/handset not charging etc. in the mobile set in question whereas the general condition of the mobile set in question was O.K./good. The OP No.2 has admitted in para No.6 of the written statement that the complainant came to the service centre with the complaint of Auto Off, Camera Problem etc. and OP No.2 sent the mobile for its repair on 20.01.2016 to the company as the mobile set in question was under warranty. It has also been admitted by the OP No.2 in para No.7 of the W.S. that mobile set in question is still lying with the OP No.2. From the contents mentioned in these para No.6 & 7 of the written statement of Op No.2, it is clear that the Op No.2 sent the mobile set in question to the company after a long gap i.e. sent the mobile set on 21.01.2016 whereas the complainant handed over the mobile set in question on 27.11.2015 vide job card Annexure C-1. Further, from the contents of this para No.7, it is also clear that the mobile set in question is still lying with the OP No.2 and the OP No.2 has not placed on file any document vide which he ever informed the complainant to collect the mobile set in question. Even, the OP No.2 has not disclosed any particular date on which he made the telephonic call to the complainant to collect the same, so, the version of the OP No.2 that he made so many calls to the complainant to collect the mobile set in question is not tenable. Further, from the perusal of job sheet Annexure C-2 is duly evident that mobile set in question was having major problems since its purchase as the complainant handed over the mobile to the service centre within a period of 4-5 months, so, we are of the considered view that mobile set in question was having manufacturing defect. On the other angle also, Ops failed to place on file any cogent evidence to controvert the version of the complainant and remained ex-parte.
10. In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No.2 & 3 due to which the complainant has suffered mentally harassment as well as financial loss. Hence, we have no option except to partly allow the complaint of complainant.
11. Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs No.2 & 3 jointly and severally to refund the entire amount i.e. cost of the mobile in question i.e. Rs. 24,000/- within a period of 30 days failing which complainant shall be entitled to recover interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. The OPs No.2 & 3 are further directed to pay Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per rules. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court.09.05.2017
(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)
PRESIDENT
DCDRF Yamuna Nagar
(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND) (S.C.SHARMA)
MEMBER MEMBER
