Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 262.
Instituted on : 11.06.2018.
Decided on : 01.03.2019.
Amit Dahiya, age 39 years, son of Sh. Inder Singh, Resident of H.No. 877E, Bharat Colony, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
1. Global Mobile Care (Authorized Service Centre)
# 331/6, Opp. C.R. Institute of Law
Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001, through its Manager,
Mobile No. 9416274275.
2. Amazon Development Center India Pvt. Ltd., Brigade Gateway, 8th,
9th & 10th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W),
Bangalore-560055, through its Manager.
3. Managing Director, Nokia Networks India, Corporate office, 7th Floor, Building 9A, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase III, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana, India.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Deepak Chahal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Vikram Khattar, Advocate for opposite party No. 2.
(OP No. 2 deleted vide order dated 13.12.2018).
Opposite parties No. 1 and 3 already exparte v.o.d. 26.07.2018.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile phone Nokia 7 Plus (Black-Copper, 64 GB) having IMEI No. 353400090033643 from the respondent No.2 online on dated 30.04.2018 vide invoice No. DEL2-19461 for Rs.25,999/-. It is alleged that due to manufacturing defect in the said mobile, the same did not work properly and has several technical problems such as camera problem, heating problem, charging problem and hands free not working etc. On 28.05.2018, complainant had approached to the OP No. 1 and told them about the said problems. Due to manufacturing issues in the alleged mobile, the OP No. 1 replaced the mobile set on 01.06.2018 with other new one with IMEI No. 353400090007811, 353400091807813. The replaced mobile was not sealed pack but the old one and on questioning the same, it was told that the complainant’s mobile was also old one, so it cannot be replaced with new one. It is further alleged that replaced mobile was also having manufacturing defects such as hanging problem, camera problem and heating problem. Then complainant again approached to the OP No. 1 on 04.06.2018 and told about the problems in said mobile set but the opposite party No.1 denied for any kind of help saying that the mobile has already been replaced.. That the act of opposite parties of selling a defective mobile is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of mobile set amounting to Rs.25,999/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing this complaint, Rs. 11,000/- as litigation charges and Rs.35,000/- as compensation as explained in relief clause.
2. On notice, the opposite party No. 2 appeared and filed his written reply. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply submitted that the complainant purchased the said mobile handset from an independent third party seller i.e. Green Mobiles. However, the seller has not even been impleaded as a party to the present case. It is denied that there was any deficiency in service on part of OP No. 2. Admittedly, the alleged mobile handset has manufacturing defects which can be rectified by the manufacturer only and ASSPL has no role in it. It is further submitted that ASSPL does not sell or offer to sell any products and it merely provides an online marketplace where independent third party sellers list their products for sale. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs qua the OP No. 2.
3. Whereas, OP No. 1 failed to appear before the court despite due service and notice issued to OP No. 3 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. Hence, OPs no. 1 and 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.07.2018 of this Forum.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 13.12.2018.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that complainant had purchased the mobile set on 30.04.2018 which was replaced by the opposite parties on dated 01.06.2018. After 3 days the complainant made a complaint before the respondents regarding the fact that the replaced mobile set was also having a manufacturing defects as it was having hanging problem, camera not working and heating problem etc.. Moreover, the replaced mobile set was not sealed pack but after making the complaint, the respondents have not removed the defects of the complaint. Hence the present complaint was filed by the complainant within a week i.e. on 11.06.2018. After filing the complaint also, the complainant sent emails dated 15.02.2019 and 22.02.2019 respectively which are placed on record as Annexure-A and Annexure-B but the same were not replied by the opposite parties. It is also on record that opposite party No.1 & 3 did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding selling defective mobile set stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and OP No.3 i.e. manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile in question to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 to pay Rs.25999/- say Rs.26000/-(Rupees twenty six thousand only) towards cost of mobile set alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 11.06.2018 till its realization and shall also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
01.03.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Ved Pal, Member.
…………………………………
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
