Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/97/2018

Parmal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gionee India - Opp.Party(s)

Rajender Kumar

16 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/97/2018
Date of Institution	:	15/02/2018
Date of Decision	:	16/11/2018

 

Parmal Singh, R/o H.No. 2294, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]    Gionee India, E-9, Block No.B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110044, through its Managing Director.

[2]    Gionee Customer Care, SCO 66, Sector 7, Panchkula, through its Managing Director.

[3]    Reliance Digital, Ellante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM        :	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K. SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Rajender Kumar, Counsel for Complainant.
		Opposite Party No.1 & 2 ex-parte.
		Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Counsel for Opposite Party No.3.

Per Dr.S.K Sardana, Member

1.         The facts of the Consumer Complaint, in brief, are that on 01.02.2017 the Complainant purchased one Gionee F103 Pro mobile handset for Rs.10,999/- from Opposite Party No.3 vide bill Annexure C-1. After two-three months, the said mobile handset becomes off while using and color of the screen, pictures and words becomes purple and not readable. On the advice of Opposite Party No.3, the subject mobile handset was deposited with the Authorized Service Centre of the Company (OP No.2), who updated the Software, but even thereafter, the problem remained the same. The Complainant eventually made a Complaint to Opposite Party No.1 on 18.01.2018 vide Annexure C-2, but there was no response. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.
3.         Opposite Party No.3 contested the claim of the Complainant by filing its written statement, inter alia, admitting the factual matrix of the case. It has been pleaded that it is just a Retailer and is not involved in the manufacturing process of the product sold at its store and thus in no way responsible for any defect as alleged by the Complainant in the product purchased. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Contesting Parties.
6.         Significantly, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 did not appear to contest the claim of the Complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
7.         In the present circumstances, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine as he has been made to run from pillar to post for no fault on his part. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as they ought to have resolved the matter by promptly arranging the replacement of the handset with a new one or to get the handset of the Complainant repaired, which they failed to do and rather propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. At any rate, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant, despite having approached for the same by the Complainant time & again. Thus, finding                           a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, we have no other alternative, but to                       allow the present complaint against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
8.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are, jointly and severally, directed:-

[a]    To refund Rs.10,999/- being the invoice price of the handset along with interest @7% p.a. from the date of its purchase, till realization;

[b]    To pay to the complainant Rs.3,500/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

[c]    To pay to the complainant Rs.3,500/- as costs of litigation.

                The Complaint against Opposite Party No.3 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

9.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of purchase, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].
10.         The Complainant shall return the defective mobile handset in question, if it is in his possession, to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, after the compliance of the order.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
16/11/2018	[Dr.S.K. Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”