Haryana

Kaithal

332/18

A.K Sardana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gionee India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Gaurav Wadhwa

23 Nov 2020

ORDER

DCDRF
KAITHAL
 
Complaint Case No. 332/18
( Date of Filing : 21 Dec 2018 )
 
1. A.K Sardana
Sect 20.Huda,Kaithal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Gionee India Pvt Ltd
New Delhi
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 23 Nov 2020
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

Complaint Case No.332 of 2018.

Date of instt.:21.12.2018.

                                                        Date of Decision:23.11.2020.

A.K.Sardana S/o late Sh. Ram Kishan Sardana R/o Kothi No.01, Sector-20, HUDA, Kaithal (Haryana)-136027.

 

                                                                ……….Complainant.                               Versus

  1. Gionee India Private Limited, E-9, Block No. B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

Now:

Jaina India Pvt. Ltd., D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110020 (India).

  1. M/s. M.G.Infotech, Shop No.2, Park Road, Kaithal.
  2. M/s. Jai Maa Mobile Repair-Kaithal, Opp. Old D.C. Residence, Karnal Road, Kaithal, Haryana-136027.
  3. Dev Raj Electronics- Ambala Cantt., Shop No.119, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt., Haryana-133004.

 

..………OPs.

                                                                                               

Before:      Sh. D.N.Arora, President.

                Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

                Smt. Suman Rana, Member.

       

Present :    Sh. Gaurav Wadhwa, Advocate for complainant.

                 Op No.2 given-up.

                 OPs No.1, 3 & 4 already exparte.

                                         

ORDER

D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                    The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) with the averments that the complainant purchased one brand new Gionee A1 (Black) Smartphone bearing IMEI No.863854031981463 having two (1+1) year warranty period for the sum of Rs.20,000/- vide invoice No.1088 dt. 12.04.2017.  It is alleged that in the month of February, 2018 the said smart phone started the problems like low receiver sound, frequent hangs, touch & display issues etc. and he approached the Op No.3 on 15.02.2018 and the Op No.3 issued a service job-sheet No.GC18200050607 dt. 15.02.2018 but the defects were not removed from the said mobile set.  It is further alleged that again in the month of September, 2018 the said mobile set stopped working, battery was getting auto discharged.  The complainant deposited the said mobile set with the Op No.4 vide service job-sheet No.GC18900050600 dt. 29.09.2018.  It is further alleged that after repeatedly enquiring regarding the product in question, the Op No.4 informed the complainant that his mobile set has been sent to next level service centre and it might take about two months in its repair.  In such circumstances, the complainant being professional advocate could not wait for two months and was constrained to buy a new smart phone (Mi A2-Black 64GB) for the sum of Rs.16,999/- vide invoice dt. 04.10.2018.  It is further alleged that on 14.11.2018 i.e. after 45 days from depositing the mobile set with the Op No.4, the complainant received a telephonic text message from the Op company to collect back smart phone but the Op No.4 demanded a sum of Rs.295/- + taxes and also asked Rs.1125/- approximately as cost of battery stating that the battery comes with 6 months warranty only.  Hence, the complainant having no option, paid Rs.1125/- to Op No.4 for collecting his mobile set on 25.11.2018.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint.   

2.             Upon notice, the Ops did not appear.  The Ops No.3 & 4 were proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 04.02.2019 of this Commission, whereas Op No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 07.02.2020 of this Commission.  The Op No.2 was given-up by ld. Counsel for the complainant vide his statement recorded separately on 28.02.2019.     

3.             The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C10 and thereafter, closed the evidence.     

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.             From the pleadings and evidence available on the file, it is clear that the mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant from Op No.2 for the sum of Rs.20,000/- vide invoice No.1088 dt. 12.04.2017 as per Annexure-C1.  The grievance of the complainant is that in the month of February, 2018 the said smart phone started the problems like low receiver sound, frequent hangs, touch & display issues etc. and he approached the Op No.3 on 15.02.2018 and the Op No.3 issued a service job-sheet No.GC18200050607 dt. 15.02.2018 but the defects were not removed from the said mobile set.  The further grievance of the  complainant is that again in the month of September, 2018 the said mobile set stopped working, battery was getting auto discharged.  The complainant deposited the said mobile set with the Op No.4 vide service job-sheet No.GC18900050600 dt. 29.09.2018 but the defects were not removed from the said mobile set.

6.             During the course of arguments, the complainant moved an application on 27.10.2020 for sending the mobile set for expert opinion and the said application was allowed by this Commission vide order dt. 27.10.2020.  The expert namely Sh. Hitesh Kumar Gera, Instructor Electronics Mech. Govt. I.T.I., Kaithal submitted his report Annexure-A in this Commission on 20.10.2020.  We have perused the said report wherein the expert has mentioned as under:-

1.      Auto off problem during working.

2.      Receiver sound is low.

Reasons for non-proper working.

                   It is due to the manufacturing defect. 

          Due to above mentioned reason mobile is working but automatically on/off during working due to manufacturing defect in battery.  Hence no proper functioning takes place.  This model of mobile contain inbuilt battery.

          So, it is clear that the expert has checked the mobile set in question and he gave the report that the mobile set was having manufacturing defect.  On the other hand, the Ops have also not rebutted the expert report given by Sh. Hitesh Kumar, Instructor Electronics Govt. I.T.I., Kaithal.  The Ops No.1, 3 & 4 were proceeded against exparte, whereas the Op No.2 was given-up by ld. Counsel for the complainant vide his separate statement recorded on 28.02.2019.  So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the Ops.  So, we have no option except to believe the report of expert mentioned above.  It is also clear from the pleadings that the complainant purchased the another mobile set for the sum of Rs.16,999/- as per Annexure-C6.  Such type of product is essential for running the business now-a-days.  Moreover, the complainant is an Advocate and we are of the view that the mobile set is very necessary and the complainant has been deprived to work without mobile set.  In such like circumstances of the case, we find that the complaint filed by the complainant seems to be genuine and the OPs are deficient in providing services to the complainant.  So, it is a fit case to refund the cost of mobile set in question to the complainant.         

7.             Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint against the Ops No.1, 3 & 4 and direct the Ops No.1, 3 & 4 to refund Rs.20,000/- as the cost of mobile set purchased by the complainant from the Ops as per Annexure-C2 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of purchase of mobile set till its realization.  The complainant is also directed to deposit the old mobile set alongwith accessories with the service-centre of Ops.  The Ops No.1, 3 & 4 are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant.  The Ops No.1, 3 & 4 are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:23.11.2020.  

                                                                        (D.N.Arora)

                                                                        President.

 

(Suman Rana),           (Rajbir Singh)         

Member                             Member.

 

 

 

            

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.