Punjab

Sangrur

CC/360/2017

Nitasha Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Guru Kirpa Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Ramandeep

15 Nov 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 360                                                                                         

                                                                 Instituted on:    25.07.2017                                                                                  

                                                                  Decided on:     15.11.2017

 

 

Nitasha Rani wife of Sh. Ramandeep resident of #1284 Dashmesh Nagar, Bhawanigarh.        

                                                …. Complainant

 

                                Versus

 

 

1.     Guru Kirpa  Enterprises, Near Bus Stand, Dhuri Gate, Sangrur through its Prop/Partner.

 

2.      OPPO Mobile India, 2nd Floor, Block 1 , Vatika Business Park, Sohna Road, Sector 49, Gurgaon Haryana through its Managing Director.

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri Ramandeep Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.1                     :      Shri Ashish Grover, Advocate

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2          :      Exparte                          

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Nitasha Rani, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that she purchased one Oppo F1s 32 GB  mobile phone from the OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.18000/- vide invoice no. 2623 dated 13.09.2016 and OP had given warranty of one year.   From the very beginning, the mobile set in question started giving problem of hanging, poor battery backup and non-catching of network of the network provider. After four months,  the mobile set started giving another problem of Heat Up  and Call voice not clear for which the complainant approached the OP No.1  who told that care centre of the company is situated at Patiala, therefore  he will send the set  to care centre for repair . The set was returned to the complainant  but the problem of Heat Up and Call Voice Not Clear remains the same.  The complainant also demanded the job sheet  but OP no.1 refused to give the same. Then the complainant requested the OPs to replace the defective mobile set with new one as it is within guarantee period but OPs refused to do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to refund the purchase amount of the said mobile phone i.e. Rs.18000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till  realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OP no.2 did not appear and as such OP no.2 was proceeded exparte on 06.09.2017.

3.             In reply filed by OP No.1, it has been stated that complainant never visited the OP no.1 as alleged. If any liability arises that is of OP no.2 being manufacturer.  The OP no.1 is only dealer of manufacturer. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no.1.    

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP No.1 has not any document in evidence.    

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.1, we find that complainant purchased Oppo F1s 32 GB  mobile phone from the OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.18000/- vide invoice no. 2623 dated 13.09.2016 which is Ex.C-2 on record. The complainant has stated that from the very beginning, the mobile set in question started giving problem of hanging, poor battery back and non-catching of network of the network provider and after four month of purchase, the mobile set started giving another problem of Heat Up Call Voice Not Clear for which he approached the OP No.1  who told that care centre of the company is situated at Patiala, therefore  he will send the set  to care centre for repair.  The complainant further stated that  the set was returned to her but the problem of Heat Up Call Voice Not Clear persisted and  thereafter the  OP no.1 refused to entertain  the complaint and said that he made every efforts to remove the problems but the set has manufacturing defect which cannot be rectified. The complainant has  alleged that he  also demanded the job sheet  but OP no.1 refused to give the same. To prove her case that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question, the complainant has produced on record copy of report of an expert namely Damanjit Singh alongwith his affidavit Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-3 respectively wherein it has been stated that he retained the defective mobile set with him for two days and used the same. After using the same, he found that mobile was given the problem of  " Heat up and Call voice Not Clear". He got checked the said mobile phone and found that the mobile set has manufacturing defect which is not curable one. The OP no.1 did not appear to contest the case of the complainant rather they chosen to remain exparte. Moreover, the OP no.1 has not produced any documentary evidence to contest the case of the complainant.  As such evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted.

6.             For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs, who are jointly and severally liable, to replace the mobile set in question with new one of the same                                                                                             model with fresh warranty. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment 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 15, 2017

 

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati) ( Sarita Garg)   (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                

Member            Member                         President