BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR
C.C. No.364 of 2014 Date of Institution: 24.9.2014
Date of Decision: 28.1.2015
Jatinder Singh, aged 30 years, son of Darshan Singh, resident of Village Khadoor, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur.
....... Complainant
Versus
1. Gaurav Enterprises, Chowk Delhi Gate, Ferozepur City, through Its Proprietor.
2. Gionee India Head Quarter, C/O Syntech Technology Private Limited, F-2, Block No.B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, through its authorized Signatory.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Navdeep Ghai, Advocate
For opposite party No.1 : Ex-parte
For opposite party No.2 : Sh. Rohit Monga, Representative
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
S. Gyan Singh, Member
C.C. No.364 of 2014 \\2//
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that opposite party No.2 is importer and marketing of Gionee mobiles. Opposite party No.1 is running a shop of selling the mobiles. The complainant purchased one mobile set make Gionee-E7 Mini XI for a sum of Rs.17,700/- from opposite party No.1 vide Invoice No.6075 dated 18.8.2014. Further it has been pleaded that on 21.8.2014 i.e. after three days from the purchase of mobile set, it has become off and started giving problem. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 on the same day and he made a complaint to opposite party No.1 regarding above said fault in his mobile set. Opposite party No.1 gave back the mobile set after some repair to the complainant on the same day. But again the mobile set has given same problem to the complainant on 1.9.2014. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 on the same day and he made a complaint to opposite party No.1 again regarding above said fault in his mobile set. Opposite party No.1 kept the mobile set and gave back the mobile set after some repair to the complainant on 4.9.2014 and assured the complainant that now it will be ‘OK’. Further it has been pleaded that again the mobile set has given same problem to the complainant on 7.9.2014, the complainant approached opposite party No.1 on the same day and opposite party No.1 kept the
C.C. No.364 of 2014 \\3//
mobile set and gave back the mobile set after some repair to the complainant on 13.9.2014 and again assured the complainant that now it will be ‘OK’. But on the same day i.e. 13.9.2014, the mobile set has given same problem to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant again approached opposite party No.1 and requested opposite party No.1 to refund the price amount of Rs.17,700/- to complainant, but opposite party No.1 has been putting off the complainant on pretext or the other and after two days, opposite parties flatly refused to refund the price amount of Rs.17,700/- of mobile set in question to the complainant. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund the price of amount of mobile set in question to the tune of Rs.17,700/- with interest to the complainant. Further the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs.70,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as costs of present complaint.
2. Opposite party No.1 did not appear before this Forum despite service of notice. Therefore, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 3.11.2014.
3. Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and filed its written reply to the complaint, wherein it has been pleaded that that the
C.C. No.364 of 2014 \\4//
complainant approached opposite party No.1 first time on 8.9.2014 with the problem of software in the mobile cell. Opposite party No.1 had sent the same to the service centre i.e. Gaurav Telecom, Aggarsain Chowk, Ferozepur City and the mobile in question after repair was handed over to the complainant in OK condition. Thereafter, the complainant never visited or approached opposite party with any problem in the said mobile and totally false and concocted version having visiting time and again with opposite party for repair purposes has been put forward by the complainant. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and thereafter failed to lead remaining evidence of the complainant despite availing sufficient opportunity. Therefore, evidence of the complainant was closed by order dated 2.1.2015. On the other hand, representative of opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-2/1 to Ex.OP-2/2 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.
6. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties sold defective mobile handset in question to the complainant and they have
C.C. No.364 of 2014 \\5//
failed to put it in proper working condition despite repeated repairs. Though opposite party No.2 has pleaded that mobile handset in question has been got repaired and put in proper working condition on 8.9.2014, but during the proceedings of the present complaint when the parties were going to address arguments, opposite party No.2 has replaced the mobile handset in question with new one and representative of opposite party No.2 has also made a statement that he will issue new bill along with warranty period to the complainant. Representative of opposite party No.2 has not made statement that the mobile handset in question has been replaced as a gesture of goodwill. Replacement of the mobile handset in question itself reveals that the mobile handset in question was defective. The complainant had purchased the mobile handset in question by spending an amount of Rs.17,700/-, but supply of defective mobile hand set became a source of nuisance of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 has only sold the mobile handset in question to the complainant and warranty of the same, being its manufacturer, was given by opposite party No.2 and as such only opposite party No.2 was liable to replace the mobile handset in question. However, replacement of the mobile handset in question has been made by opposite party No.2 only after filing the present complaint, when the case is fixed for arguments. Therefore, harassment of the complainant during this period also cannot be ruled out. Therefore, opposite party No.2 is also liable to
C.C. No.364 of 2014 \\6//
pay suitable compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted and opposite party No.2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced
28.1.2015 (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
President
(Gyan Singh) Member
