DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No.531 of 17-10-2012
Decided on 04-03-2013
Maneet Jindal, aged about 19 years s/o Satish Kumar Jindal r/o # 1335, St.No.1, New Basti, Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.Goyal Communications, Amrik Singh Road, Opposite Urang cinema, Bathinda, through its Proprietor.
2.Hindtel Communication, Bibiwala Road, Near Krishna Continental, Opposite Sarup Singla Office, Bathinda, through its Prop./Manager.
3.Nokia India Private Limited, 2nd floor, Commercial Plaza, Radisson Hotel No.48-Mahipalpur New Delhi-37, through its M.D., C.M.D.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Hanish Bansal, counsel for complainant.
For Opposite parties: Opposite parties ex-parte.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased one mobile handset Model Nokia Asha 300, bearing IMEI No.352427/05/0664415 from the opposite party No.1 vide bill No.2335 dated 20.8.2012 for an amount of Rs.6300/- paid in cash against one year warranty. At the time of purchasing of the said mobile handset, the opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that in case he will have any problem in this mobile handset then it will be removed free of cost during one year warranty period from the date of its purchase. After two days from the date of the purchase of the said mobile handset i.e. on 22.8.2012, it started giving problem as it was not functioning properly and has defects relating to Alert, Ringing tone issue, No outgoing audio, Hanging problem and Transceiver. The complainant asked the opposite party No.1 to remove the said problems as per their assurance given at the time of the purchase of the said mobile handset, the opposite party No.1 misbehaved with him and asked him to contact the Nokia Authorized Service centre i.e. the opposite party No.2 as that is only the place where the facility of repairing is available. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 with the same request and their officials returned the said mobile handset to him after removing the problem on 23.8.2012 and thereafter the said mobile handset again started creating the same problems. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.2 and they issued him job sheet No.176433527/120829/11 dated 29.8.2012 but did not repair the said mobile handset and kept the same with them which is still in their custody and on making several requests it insisted him to get the said handset without its necessary repairs. The complainant repeatedly requested the opposite party No.2 to repair/replace the said mobile handset but they did not pay any heed to his requests despite that the same is within the warranty period and is still lying with them. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties to refund the price of the said mobile handset as there is manufacturing defect as disclosed by the opposite party No.2 and to pay any additional or alternative relief to which he is found entitled to alongwith cost and compensation.
2. The opposite parties have been summoned through the registered post but despite receiving the summons they have failed to appear before this Forum, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against the opposite parties.
3. The complainant has led ex-parte evidence in support of his allegations. He has produced Ex.C1 bill dated 20.8.2012; Ex.C2 photocopy of job sheet; Ex.C3 photocopy of legal notice; Ex.C4 postal receipt and Ex.C5 his own affidavit dated 16.10.2012.
4. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel of the complainant heard at length. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the complainant perused.
5. The contention of the complainant is that he has purchased one mobile handset vide bill No.2335 dated 20.8.2012 of Nokia make Model Asha 300, bearing IMEI No.352427/05/0664415 worth Rs.6300/- from the opposite party No.1 vide Ex.C1. The complainant further submitted that the said mobile handset started creating problem soon after its purchase i.e. only after 2 days. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 to remove the said problems, it asked him to approach the opposite party No.2. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 with the same request and they issued him job sheet No.176433527/120829/11 dated 29.8.2012 Ex.C2 and the problem recorded is 'Alert, Ringing tone issue, Audio, No outgoing audio, Transceiver' and on this job sheet it has also been mentioned 'subject to technical verification to Liquid Logged and Tempering of handset'.
6. The opposite party No.2 has failed to rectify the said mobile handset and also not gave its report regarding technical verification for Liquid Logged and Tempering of handset. The complainant has also sent a legal notice dated 22.9.2012 to the opposite parties but no reply have been given to the said legal notice.
7. The opposite parties have not appeared before this Forum despite service of summons which clearly depicts that they intentionally have not appeared before this Forum just to shed their liability and do not want to take the responsibility of the product sold by them. The non appearance of any of the opposite parties itself shows that they admit the fault in the said mobile handset that has been lying in the custody of the opposite party No.2 and the same has not been returned till date.
8. Thus from the perusal of record placed on file this Forum concludes that the said mobile handset contacted the defect just after 7 days of its purchase which is evident from the job sheet dated 29.8.2012 Ex.C2 in which the defects are relating to Alert, Ringing tone issue, Audio, No outgoing audio, Transceiver etc. In this job sheet in the column of 'Customer Signature on Delivery' is blank meaning thereby the said mobile handset is still lying in the custody of the opposite party No.2 and has not been delivered to the complainant. Moreover it has been written in the said job sheet 'subject to technical verification to Liquid Logged and Tempering of handset'. No report of Liquid Logging and Tempering of handset have been sent by the opposite parties to the complainant till date. The opposite parties not even found it appropriate to appear before this Forum or to reply the legal notice issued by the complainant on dated 22.9.2012.
9. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3. Hence this complaint is accepted against the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation and dismissed qua the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.6300/- to the complainant. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
10. In case of non-compliance the interest @ 9% per annum will yield on the amount of Rs.6300/- till realization.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
04-03-2013 Vikramjit Kaur Soni
President
Amarjeet Paul
Member
Sukhwinder Kaur
Member
