Haryana

Jind

CC/15/24

Tarun - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gionee U.T. Elect. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Vinod Bansal

03 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 18 of 2015
   Date of Institution: 10.2.2015
   Date of final order: 3.5.2016 

Tarun son of Sh. Rajbir resident Sharma Nagar, Jind, District Jind (126102).

                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Gionee U.T. Electronics Pvt. Ltd. REgd. Office SCO 363-364 Sector 35 B Chandigarh 160022 through its authorized person.
A to Z Communciation authorized service cnetre of Samsung mobile, MV shop, Safidon road, Jind.
Dev Mobile (RV solutions private liited), opposite Reliance Web World Gohana road, Jind through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory (Authorized Service Centre).
                                                          …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant.
              Opposite parties already ex-parte.
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased Gionee E7 mobile set for a sum of Rs.29,000/- vide bill No.10955 dated 20.5.2014 from opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 has given one year warranty of the above said mobile set. At the time of purchase of mobile set, the opposite party No.2 has 
            Tarun Vs. Gionee U.T. Electronics etc.
                    …2…
given the assurance to the complainant  that the company is very reputed International famous company and their products are of World Class. The mobile of the complainant started giving problems like hanging, heating, flash light auto off, camera of the mobile used to automatically off, touch system was not working properly, centre key was defective and there was also problem in internet use, speaker and receiver of the mobile was not functioning properly. The complainant handedover the mobile set to opposite party No.3 for removing the defect of the mobile set. The complainant returned the job sheet to the opposite party No.3 on 23.1.2015 thereafter the opposite party No.3 give the mobile along with detailed repair slip and asked the complainant to put his signature on the same in token of receiving mobile after repair in good condition. But the complainant got stunned to see that the mobile is broken and was not function properly. The complainant refused to take back the broken mobile set.    Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to  remove the defect of the mobile set or to pay the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.29,000/-, a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. 
2.    The opposite parties were proceeded against ex-parte vide orders of this Forum dated 1.4.2015, 14.5.2015 and 8.9.2015.

            Tarun Vs. Gionee U.T. Electronics etc.
                    …3…
3.    In ex-parte evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of cash memo Ex. C-2 and copy of job sheet Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence. 
4.    We have heard the argument of Ld. Counsel of complainant and perused the record placed on file. The complainant has purchased the mobile phone against a sum of Rs. 29,000/- on 20.5.2014 and the same has started giving trouble from the very beginning. The Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that  since the purchase of  mobile, the mobile is not working properly i.e. hanging, heating, flash light auto off, camera of the mobile used to automatically off, touch system was not working properly, centre key was defective and there was also problem in internet use, speaker and receiver of the mobile was not functioning properly. The body of the mobile phone has also been broken during repair by the opposite parties and the set is still lying with them. 
5.    We have gone through the cash memo Ex. C-2 as well as copy   of job sheet Ex. C-3 and also gone through the affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1 it is very much clear from the perusal of the job sheet Ex. C-3 there were various  problems in the  mobile set. Moreover, complainant has filed this complaint within warranty period. The opposite parties have not appeared in this complaint and they were proceeded against ex-parte meaning thereby they nothing to say in their defence.
6.    We are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint is allowed in 
            Tarun Vs. Gionee U.T. Electronics etc.
                    …4…
the interest of justice. The opposite parties are directed to pay the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.29,000/-(Rs. twenty nine thousand only) along with to pay a sum of  Rs.1100/- (Rs. one thousand and one hundred only)as litigation expenses to the complainant. The orders be complianced within one month from the date of orders, failing which an interest @ 9% p.a. will be charged from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 10.2.2015 till its full realization. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 3.5.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                Tarun Vs. Gionee U.T. Electronics etc.
                    
Present:  Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant.
              Opposite parties already ex-parte.

              Arguments heard. To come up on 3.5.2016 for orders.
 
                                    President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  2.5.2016

Present:  Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant.
              Opposite parties already ex-parte.

         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                          President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  3.5.2016