Punjab

Sangrur

CC/33/2015

Jatinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Golden Gift - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Mohd. Izhar

03 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    33

                                                Instituted on:      15.01.2015

                                                Decided on:       03.06.2015

 

 

Jatinder Singh son of Jagroop Singh R/o Village Banbhora, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Golden Gift and Antique House, College Road, Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its Prop.

2.             T.V.S. Electronics Ltd. Cabin No.111, Plot No.260-A, Model Town EXT. Ludhiana 141 001 through its authorised signatory.

3.             HTC India Pvt. Ltd. Corporate Office, G-4, BPTP Park Avenue, Gurgaon Sector 30, Near NH-8, Gurgaon, through its MD/Chairman.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant    :               Shri Mohd. Izhar, Adv.

For OP No.1              :               Shri Ashish Grover, Adv.

For OP No.2&3         :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Jatinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one HTC mark mobile set bearing model number D-210 bearing IMEI number 353131065192748 for Rs.7000/- from OP number 1  vide bill number 5596 dated 11.10.2014, whereas OP number 2 is the service centre of company and OP number 3 is the marketer and distributor of the said mobile set.  It is further averred that within one month from its purchase, the mobile set started giving problem regarding charging and not proper functioning, as such the complainant approached OP number 1 about the same.  After checking the mobile set in question, OP number 1 suggested the complainant to approach OP umber 2, as such the complainant approached OP number 2 on 3.11.2014, who after checking told the complainant that there is a manufacturing defect, as such they retained the mobile set for repairs vide job sheet dated 3.11.2014 and returned the set on 27.11.2014 after replacing the main board of the mobile set.  But, again after some days, the mobile set started giving problem of defective pixel/lines on display and the complainant handed over the mobile set to OP number 2 on 27.12.2014, but the set was never repaired after that nor given any satisfactory reply.  As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.7000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by Op number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint.  On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question.  However, it has been denied that the complainant ever approached the OP number 1 nor the OP number 1 ever advised the complainant to approach OP number 2.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             Record shows that OPs number 2 and 3 were  proceeded exparte on 10.03.2015.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of bill, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-3 copies of reports, Ex.C-4 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 and Ex.OP1/2 copies of job sheets and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             A bare perusal of the file clearly reveals that OPs number 2 and 3 did not appear despite service and chose to remain exparte.  Ex.C-1 is a copy of the bill issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.7000/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 1. But, the OP number 1 has denied that the complainant never approached him for any of the defect in the mobile set in question. Ex.C-2 is the copy of job order sheet dated 27.11.2014, showing the defect in the mobile set ‘cannot charge/unable fully charge’ and Ex.C-3 is the copy of another job order sheet issued by OP number 2 on 27.12.2014 saying defect ‘defective pixel/lines on display’. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the defects in the mobile set have been duly proved from the job sheets issued by OP number 2, which are on record as Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3.   The Ops have produced only the job sheets Ex.OP1/1 and Ex.Op1/2 on record and no affidavit of any authorised person/ engineer is on the file nor the Ops have produced on record any evidence showing that the mobile set in question carries no defect.  The OP number 1 has not even produced the affidavit of any expert on the record or any expert of the official to corroborate the contents of the written reply.  It is further mentioned in the complaint that the mobile set is lying with the Op number 2, but the OP number 2 in the present proceedings did not appear and chose to remain exparte.  As such, we feel that the complainant has spent a sufficient amount on the mobile set, but it did not work even during the warranty period and the Ops even failed to repair the mobile set in question during the warranty period.  As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Under the circumstances, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the OPs number 1 to 3 are directed to hand over the complainant a new mobile set of the same make and model.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to hand over the complainant a new mobile set mark HTC bearing model number D-210, which was sold to the complainant within a period of thirty days, failing which they shall be liable to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.7000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till its realisation. We further order the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses. 

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 3, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member