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

========

Neeraj, s/o Sh. Om Parkash, r/o #1050, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

Gaytime Collections, Booth No. 1086 C, Sector 22-B, (Near Piccadly Hotel) Chandigarh.

2.  Salora International Ltd., Authorized Service Centre, S.C.O. 327, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL   MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Vijay Guleria, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Varinder Mahajan, Proprietor of OP No.1.

OP No.2 exparte.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant on 10.10.2009 had purchased a mobile set make Karbonn-KC-555 for Rs.6,000/- from OP-1. After half an hour he found that the speaker of the said mobile set was not functioning properly.  He immediately approached OP-1 for the same and requested him for the replacement of the said mobile set with a new set of other model of same price, on which, OP-1 had told him to come next day in the morning as new mobile set of other model was not available with OP-1 at that time.  In the mean time the charger of the set stopped functioning which was also brought to the notice of OP-1. He visited the shop of OP-1 many times but every time OP-1 gave lame excuses to him. Finally OP-1 told him that the mobile set would not be replaced and it could only be repaired at their workshop/service centre at Sector 40-D, Chandigarh (OP-2). He visited the office of OP-2 several times but was never entertained by OP-2. He again approached OP-1 regarding the same but OP-1 refused to entertain him and told him to contact OP-2 for whatever problem the set was giving.  He visited the OPs several times but was of no use at all. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             Notice was served to the OPs. In their written reply the Proprietor of OP-1 submitted that the complaint was liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant had not made the mobile company(manufacturer) as necessary party and OP-1 was the seller only, not the manufacturer (manufacturing company) or service provider. The mobile set was sold to the complainant after showing its proper functioning. The mobile set sold by any shopkeeper could not be replaced or repaired by the shopkeeper, but it was the duty of the authorized station of the company of the concerned mobile set. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OP pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.             None appeared on behalf of the OP-2.  Accordingly the OP-2 was proceeded ex-parte. 

4.      The complainant and Proprietor of OP-1 led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the Proprietor of OP-1 and have also perused the record including the written arguments submitted by the complainant. 

6.             Annexure C-1 is the retail invoice showing that the mobile set was purchased by the complainant for Rs.6,000/- from OP-1.  The contention of the OP-1 is that in case of any problem the manufacturer should have been approached and they (OP-1) are not responsible for any defect in the mobile phone.  This contention cannot be accepted as correct.  If the defective mobile phone is sold by OP-1, it is their responsibility to repair or replace it, failing which to refund the amount to the purchaser.  The OP-1 therefore cannot operate in the market only to dupe gullible customers by selling defective items to them or such items which may go defective even on the next day when put to use.  It is for the OP-1 to claim or not to claim the charges from the manufacturer and it is their personal decision to sell or not to sell the mobile sets of such manufacturers, which do not satisfy the consumers.

7.             The contention of the complainant is that OP-1 refused to remove the defects.  He approached OP-2 which is the service provider but they also failed to remove the defects and rather harassed and humiliated him.. He claims to have been physically and mentally harassed due to the attitude of the OPs.

8.             Since the mobile phone was defective, it is the duty of the OPs to repair the same.  The OPs are therefore directed to repair the mobile set free of charges within 7 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and also pay to the complainant Rs.1100/- as costs of litigation.  If the mobile phone is not repaired within the aforesaid period, the OP-1 would refund the amount of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant alongwith litigation cost of Rs.1100/- and shall take back the mobile phone from the complainant.

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