Gurmeet Singh filed a consumer case on 16 Nov 2016 against Golden Gift and Antique House in the Sangrur Consumer Court. The case no is CC/362/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 21 Nov 2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 362
Instituted on: 26.04.2016
Decided on: 17.11.2016
Gurmeet Singh son of Surjit Singh resident of Village Kup Kalan, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangur.
…. Complainant
Versus
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Shri Mohd. Izhar Advocate.
FOR THE OPP. PARTIES : Exparte.
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Gurmeet Singh complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased one mobile phone of HTC DESIRE 626 G Plus Dual sim on 04.06.2015 from the OP No.1 vide bill number 1819 for an amount of Rs.16000/- under one year warranty . After four month, the mobile set in question started giving some problems of network and not properly processing for which the complainant approached the OP No.1 who advised him to approach the OP no.2. Thereafter the complainant approached OP no.2 who after checking the said mobile told the complainant that there is a manufacturing defect in the set and motherboard of the set is required to be changed which will cost about Rs.12000/- vide job sheet dated 28.03.2016 and returned the set. The complainant requested the OP no.2 to repair the set free of cost as the set is under warranty but the OP no.2 refused to repair the set free of costs even the set is under warranty. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to refund price money Rs.16000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum,
ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment,
iii) OPs be directed to pay Rs.10000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notices were sent to the OPs but despite service the OPs did not appear and as such OPs were proceeded exparte.
3. The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed evidence.
4. After perusal of the documents placed on record and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that the grievance of the complainant in this case is that after purchase of the mobile set in question it started giving problem regarding network and not properly processing for which he approached the OP no.2 who told him that there is manufacturing defect in the set inquestion and its motherboard is required to be changed and thereafter he requested the OP No.2 to repair the set free of cost as it is under warranty but the OP no.2 refused to repair the set free of costs. To prove his case the complainant has produced on record retail invoice Ex.C-2 and copy of job sheet dated 28.03.2016 Ex.C-3.
5. It is the specific case of the complainant in his complaint that he approached the OP no.2 who told him that there is manufacturing defect in the set inquestion and its motherboard is required to be changed and thereafter he requested the OP No.2 to repair the set free of cost as it is under warranty but the OP no.2 refused to repair the set free of costs. But from the perusal of the job sheet Ex.C-3 we nowhere find that the OP No.2 told the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question rather in it it is mentioned that there is problem of network service failure ( including drop call, roaming) network problem and processing slow. Even if it is assumed that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question but to prove it the complainant has not produced report of an expert which proves the version of the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question. The said job sheet does not substantiate the version of the complainant regarding manufacturing defect. Hence, we feel that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question rather there is problem of network and processing slow. The OPs have not come forward to contest the case of the complainant rather they chosen to remain exparte. As such the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted.
6. In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs who are jointly and severally liable to fully repair the mobile set in question free of costs. We further direct the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- being compensation on account of mental pain agony and litigation expenses.
7. This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course. Announced
November 17, 2016
( Sarita Garg) (Sukhpal Singh Gill) Member President
BBS/-
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.