Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/601/2018

Gurdial Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gionee India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

N.S. Jagdeva

15 Oct 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/601/2018
Date of Institution	:	21/11/2018
Date of Decision	:	15/10/2020

 

Gurdial Chand age 66 years, r/o Chand r/o H.No.58, Old Mata Gujri Enclave, Mundi Kharar, Tehsil Kharar, Distt. SAS Nagar.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Gionee India Pvt. Ltd.,  through its Director, Sh. Arvind Rajnish Vohra and Kapil Kumar, H.No.233, Ashoka Enclave-I, Sector 34, Faridabad, Haryana, India 121003.
2. Mani Communications, Shop No.695, Main Bus Stop, Mundi Kharar, Distt. Mohali.
3. AKS Telecom Chandigarh, Authorized Service Centre of Gionee mobile located in Quiet Office No.1, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. N.S. Jagdeva, Counsel for complainant
	:	OPs ex-parte

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      Averments are, on 3.3.2018 complainant had purchased a Gionee mobile phone from OP-2 against payment of Rs.9,990/-. OP-1 happened to be the manufacturer of the mobile phone and OP-3 is the authorized service centre of OPs 1 & 2.  The mobile purchased by the complainant had a warranty of one year given by the manufacturer. The complainant averred he is 66 years old and running a small tea shop. The case is, after 3-4 days of purchase the mobile phone in question started giving trouble as it went out of order and failed to start. When he went to OP-2, it started the phone and assured it will not give any trouble. However, when the mobile phone again started giving problem, the complainant took the same to OP-3 where job sheet dated 8.5.2018 was prepared. OP-3 retained the same with it and returned it after some days and assured the complainant, he would not face any problem. Maintained, after some time, the same problem again cropped up and it was again taken to OP-3 who told to rectify the same within seven days.  However, when the complainant visited OP-3 after seven days, he was told there is problem with motherboard and asked to wait for some days as necessary parts were not available.  The complainant alleged, the mobile phone in question is defective one and requested the OPs to replace the same, but to no avail.  Hence, the present consumer complaint for directing the OPs to either replace the mobile phone or refund the price thereof i.e. Rs.9,990/- alongwith interest, compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. 
2.     OPs were presumed to have been served and since none appeared on their behalf, therefore, vide order dated 17.1.2019 and 28.9.2020 they were ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.
3.     Complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and documents.
4.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
5.     Perusal of the record i.e. Annexure C-1 shows the mobile phone in question was purchased from OP-2 against payment of Rs.9,990/- and the document Annexure C-2 shows it had developed a problem which was repaired on 8.5.2018 i.e. to say just after about 2-3 months from the date of purchase.  Further record pertains to the illness of the complainant and treatment taken by him from Govt. Medical College Hospital, Chandigarh.  The allegations made by the complainant are supported by way of his affidavit to the effect time and again repeated problems were developed as the mobile phone used to switch off and was repaired by OP-3, but, the problem still subsisted during the warranty period of one year.
6.     The allegations as well as the evidence led by the complainant remains un-rebutted and unchallenged on record as the OPs opted not to contest the present consumer complaint and allowed themselves to be proceeded ex-parte.  Therefore, we hold OPs have nothing to say qua the allegations levelled by the complainant. Hence, it is proved OPs have indulged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
7.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed qua OPs 1 & 2. OPs 1 & 2 are directed as under :-

1. to refund the invoice amount i.e. Rs.9,990/- of the mobile phone in question to the complainant upon return of the said mobile phone by the complainant to them.
2. to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

8.     This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
9.     The consumer complaint qua OP-3 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
15/10/2020	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President