BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Ujjawal, Department of Biochemistry, Research Block A, PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh -160012

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

Harbans Singh & Sons, SCO 1004(Basement), Sector 22-B (Opp. Bus Stand), Chandigarh -160022

                                  ……Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA  MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person.

OP ex-parte.

PER DR.(MRS.) MADHU BEHL, MEMBER

             Succinctly put, the complainant purchased a mobile phone of Huawei Company from the OP. The complainant noticed that the speaker of the said phone started showing problem on the same day of purchase.  The complainant approached the OP and informed about the said defect in the mobile phone. The OP told him to go to the company service centre.  When the complainant visited the company service centre, it was told to him that the mobile phone had been tampered and hence it was out of service and the complainant should pay the charges for repair.  The complainant approached the OP and told him to pay the repair charges because the said mobile phone was under warranty period of one year but the OP denied to pay the same. The complainant finally paid the repair charges of the said mobile phone, though it was under warranty for one year.   After that the complainant visited OP several times to resolve the matter but every time OP misbehaved with him and denied to pay the repair charges or to change the mobile phone. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant prayed to direct OP to refund the amount paid for the purchase of the said mobile phone, costs of litigation and pay compensation towards harassment, mental agony and inconvenience caused to him.

2.             Notice was served to the OP. None appeared on behalf of the OP.  Accordingly the OP was proceeded ex-parte.  

3.             The complainant led evidence in support of his contention.

4.             We have heard the complainant in person and have also perused the record. 

5.             The complainant has produced Annexure C-1 to prove that the mobile phone of Huawei Company was purchased by the complainant from OP-Harbans Singh & Sons, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, carrying one year warrantee. Annexure C-2 is the copy which shows that the said mobile started showing problem after 15 days of its purchase. Annexure C-3 is the copy which shows that the complainant had to pay Rs.165.45P from his own pocket to get the said phone repaired even though it was under the warranty of one year. Since the OP has not come forward to contest the claim of the complainant as such had suffered ex-parte proceedings. Had the facts been not true, the OPs should have come forward to argue the case in their favour and against the facts stated in the complaint of the complainant.  As regards warranty, the same has been mentioned in the bills specifically that the warranty shall be as per the terms of the company which in this case is of one year.

6.             In view of the facts and circumstances placed before us, we are of the opinion that the OP was carrying out service in a negligent and deficient manner and non repairing of the mobile phone of the complaint during the warranty period surely amounts to deficiency in service because warranty is always given directly by the company which is liable to get it repaired without any cost, and to replace in case of any default within that specified warranty period but the OP has negated the same after sale which caused physical and mental harassment to the complainant. In our opinion the dealer/OP is the only person who in the market comes in direct contact with the consumer and it is the dealer who assures the consumers about the quality of goods sold and in case the consumer has any problem with the product purchased then it is obligatory on the part of the OP or dealer to send the product (mobile phone) to the manufacturer company for necessary repairs without charging any amount if the same is under warranty period, which in the instant case has not been done by the OP and instead it made the complainant to run from pillar to post to get his mobile phone repaired, which could have easily been avoided if the dealer had performed his duty by sending the mobile phone to the company for necessary repairs without any charges being under warranty period.  In reaching to this conclusion we put reliance on the judgment of our own State Commission, U.T, Chandigarh rendered in Appeal Case Number 71 of 2005 decided on 28.03.05 reported in section 2005, CPJ781 which stipulates that the liability is also on the dealer if manufacturer is not a party in the case. Similar is the situation in the present case.

7.               In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint has merits and the same is accordingly allowed.  The OP is directed to pay costs of repair of the mobile phone i.e. Rs.165.45P to the complainant alongwith costs of litigation of Rs.5,50/- with in 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which they would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @9% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 25.11.09, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.