DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.341 of 28-08-2015
Decided on 02-02-2016
Harsh Bansal aged about 53 years S/o Brij Lal Bansal R/o Hospital Road, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.
........Complainant
Versus
1.Gionee Mobile C/o U.T Electronics Pvt. Ltd. SCO No.363, 364, Sec-35B, Chandigarh-160022, through its Director/Managing Director/Incharge/Authorized Person.
2.Gionee Mobile, through its Retailer, Shop No.212, Second Floor, Mittal Mall, Bathinda C/o Shop No.25, Ground Floor, Mittal Mall, Bathinda, Tehsil & District Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager/Authorized Person.
3.The Authorized Service Centre of Gionee Mobile, Randhava Electronics, Subhash Market, Dhobi Bazaar, Bathinda, Tehsil & District Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager/Authorized Person.(Deleted).
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.
Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Bharat Bhushan, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 ex-parte.
Opposite party No.3 already deleted.
ORDER
M. P. Singh Pahwa, President
The complainant Harsh Bansal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Gionee Mobile and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Gionee model No.V4s for Rs.9500/- vide invoice No.1236 dated 4.1.2015 from opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 is the registered office and opposite party No.2 is the retailer and opposite party No.3 is authorized service centre.
It is alleged that after about 15 days of purchase, the complainant was not satisfied with the working of mobile handset as after its ring when he accepts the call, the communication and voice clarity was not clear. He visited the dealer (Opposite party No.2), it told him that opposite party No.3 is responsible for any service. He approached opposite party No.3, it after checking the mobile handset, returned the same to him with the assurance that the problem is solved. Actually, the defect was not cured. He was in need of the mobile handset due to his business and work, but he was not able to approach again and again to opposite parties.
It is further alleged that after some days, there was problem in touch and display in the mobile handset. The complainant again approached opposite party No.3, its employee told him that there is problem in the LCD and it is broken and there is no guarantee and warranty on LCD. Opposite party No.3 lingered the matter for 2-3 months to replace the LCD with new one. Lastly on 24.4.2015, the complainant sent his mobile handset to opposite party No.3 through Vijay Kumar, it issued the service job sheet dated 24.4.2015. The mobile handset was delivered to the complainant after one month and he paid an amount of Rs.3250/- for LCD, but the defect of voice and communication remained the same. He many times visited opposite party No.3 for removing the defect, but everytime it retained the mobile handset for sometime and returned him and till date the defect is not cured. It proves that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile handset.
On this backdrop of the facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and prayed for directions to opposite parties either to replace the mobile handset with new one with full guarantee/warranty or to refund its price i.e. Rs.9500/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum and also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- on account of physical, mental agony, harassment and inconvenience etc. and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
In view of statement suffered by the counsel of the complainant on dated 9.9.2015, opposite party No.3 was deleted vide order dated 9.9.2015 from the array of the opposite parties.
Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Hence, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them.
Complainant was afforded opportunities to produce evidence.
In support of his version, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit dated 27.8.2015, (Ex.C1); photocopy of retail invoice, (Ex.C2); photocopy of service job slip, (Ex.C3) and photocopy of slip, (Ex.C4) and also produced warranty card.
We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the file carefully.
Learned counsel for complainant reiterated his version as taken in the complaint and detailed above.
We have given careful consideration to these submissions.
The complainant has asserted that he purchased one mobile handset from opposite party No.2, receipt, (Ex.C2) proves this fact. He has prayed for replacement of the mobile handset with new one or refund of its price, but there is nothing to show that opposite party No.2 was responsible for any defect occurred subsequently. He has also placed on record job sheet, (Ex.C3), which proves that he reported problems regarding 'touch' and display' on 24.4.2015. Of-course, as per complainant, these problems have been solved, but there is problem of voice and communication in the mobile handset. The evidence of the complainant is un-rebutted and unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve this evidence. The mobile handset was purchased on 4.1.2015 and complaint was filed on 28.8.2015 i.e. within the warranty period.
For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.1 and dismissed qua opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 is directed to repair the mobile handset in question as per terms and conditions of warranty.
The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
02-02-2016
(M.P Singh Pahwa)
President
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
(Jarnail Singh)
Member
