Punjab

Moga

CC/15/70

Sushma Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gionee UT Electronic Pvt. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

18 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                      C.C. No. 70 of 2015

                                                                Instituted On: 04.09.2015

                                                  Decided On: 18.11.2015

Sushma Garg, age 54 years Date of Birth 15.01.1961 w/o Sh.Kuldeep Garg, R/o 302/17, Gali No.5, Ram Ganj Mandi, Moga, Tehsil and District Moga.

Complainant 

Versus

 

1. Gionee UT Electronic Pvt. Regd. Office SCO no.363.64, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh-1670022, through its Authorized Person.

2. Sonu Mobile Store, Near Taptej Singh Market, Main Bazar Moga, Tehsil & District Moga, through its Prop. Partner.

3. M/s Arun Mobile Care, Kotakpura Road, Opp. Shera Wali Building, Moga-142001, through its Prop. Partner.

 

Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint under section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

 

Coram:      Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

                   Smt.Vinod Bala, Member

                   Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member

 

Present:     Sh.Sushma Garg complainant in person.

                   Opposite party nos.1 to 3 exparte.

 

 

ORDER

(S.S.Panesar, President)

                  Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against Gionee UT Electronic Pvt. Regd. Office SCO no.363.64, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh-1670022, through its Authorized Person and others (herein-after referred to as opposite parties)- directing them to pay the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.7700/- and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment to the complainant.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a Mobile Hand Set make Gionee P4 from opposite party no.2, vide bill no.855 dated 16.02.2015 for an amount of Rs.7700/-. Opposite party no.2 had given guarantee/warranty of one year regarding the mobile hand set in dispute. But however, during the guarantee/warranty period, the battery of the mobile hand set did not get charged properly. The complainant approached opposite party no.2 for getting the battery repaired, but however, opposite party no.2 directed the complainant to approach opposite party no.3, which is Customer Care Centre of opposite party no.1. On 2.7.2015, the complainant approached opposite party no.3 alongwith her mobile hand set and opposite party no.3 registered the complaint and retained the mobile hand set of the complainant. On 11.07.2015, mobile hand set of the complainant was returned to her on the pretext that mobile hand set has been repaired. But however, on reaching the home the mobile hand set did work and became altogether dead. The complainant again approached opposite party no.3 on 12.07.2015 and handed over the mobile hand set to it for repair. Opposite party no.3 returned the mobile hand set on 15.07.2015. But the mobile hand again not work worthy and complainant again handed over the mobile hand set to opposite party no.3. On 29.07.2015, opposite party no.3 returned the mobile hand set to the complainant and told her that mobile hand set was completely work worthy, as the battery has been replaced. But however, the mobile hand set was not work worth and complaint of the complainant was not resolved. The complainant made three complaint to opposite party, through mobile phone, but however, no heed was paid to it. Complainant is a Exide Life Advisor and she has to deal with the people mobile hand set in order all the time. But however, due to fault in the mobile hand set, complainant suffered a great financial loss. The services rendered by the opposite parties are deficient and complainant has been harassed unnecessarily. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, Sh.Saurav, Team Reader appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1, Sh.Sonu, Proprietor appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 and Sh.Arun Gulati, Proprietor appeared on behalf of opposite party no.3. But thereafter, neither any written reply filed nor anybody appeared on behalf of opposite party nos.1 to 3. As such, opposite party nos.1 to 3 were ordered to be proceeded exparte.

4.                In her exparte evidence, complainant Smt.Sushma Garg appeared in witness box as her own witness and filed her duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 in support of his allegations made in the complaint. The complainant also produced on record photocopies of the documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9 and closed her exparte evidence.

5.                We have heard the complainant in person and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.                It is proved on record that complainant has purchased Mobile Hand Set make Gionee P4, bearing IMEI No.865871024164202, Color Black, vide bill no.855 dated 16.02.2015 for an amount of Rs.7700/- from opposite party no.2, copy of the Bill/Retail Invoice account for Ex.C2.The mobile hand set in dispute was within warranty period w.e.f. date of its purchase for a further period of one year, copy of the warranty deed account for Ex.C3. The mobile hand set in dispute went out of order and the complainant approached opposite party no.3 for getting the same repaired on 02.07.2015, 12.07.2015 and 23.07.2015 respectively. But however, opposite party no.3 i.e. Service Centre of opposite party no.1 did not repair the mobile hand set in dispute to the satisfaction of the complainant and it remained faulty in providing proper service to the complainant, copies of the complaints account for Ex.C4 to Ex.C8. It appears that the mobile hand set in dispute suffered from some manufacturing defect, as despite replacing the battery of the mobile hand set on three occasions, mobile hand set did not become work worthy, copy of the complaint dated 12.08.2015 Ex.C9, bears the witness of the said fact. It becomes amply clear that opposite party nos.1 to 3 i.e. opposite party no.1 being Manufacturer, opposite party no.2 being Distributor and opposite party no.3 being Service Provider respectively have been deficient in service. The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone un-rebutted on record, as the opposite parties suffered exparte wilfully and thereby impliedly admitted the claim of the complaint.

7.                As such, the instant complaint succeeds and opposite parties are directed to refund the price of the mobile hand set in dispute to the tune of Rs.7700/- after receiving back the mobile hand set in dispute within a period of one month of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint until realization. The complaint stands allowed exparte accordingly. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

                   (Bhupinder Kaur)          (Vinod Bala)        (S.S. Panesar)

                   Member                         Member                   President

 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:18.11.2015