Haryana

Ambala

CC/249/2013

DR.R.B. SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

HASIJA MOBILE ZONE - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

05 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

Complaint Case No.      : 249 of 2013

Date of Institution         : 26.09.2013

Date of Decision            :05.06.2015

Dr. R.B. Singh son of Sh. Gurdial Singh resident of House No.2012-13, Housing Board Colony, Sector-10, Ambala City.

                                                                                       ……Complainant.

Versus

1.       Hasija Mobile Zone, Ambala City, through its Proprietor, Shukul Kund Chowk, Ambala City.

2.       Spice Mobility Limited, Authorized Service Centre, Nanak Telecom, Shop No.7, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt through its Authorized Signatory/Proprietor.

3.       Spice Mobility Limited, S. Global Knowledge Park, 19A & 19B, Sector-125, Noida-201301 (U.P.) through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory.                                               

……Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. ANIL SHARMA, MEMBER.                                     

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh. Rohin Kumar, Adv. counsel for Ops No.2 & 3.

                   OP No.1 exparte.

ORDER.

1.                Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased  a Spice Mobile Phone M-5665 from OP No.1 on 15.10.2012 in a sum of Rs.2150/-. The said mobile set after 3 months of its purchase started creating problems of signal, connectivity & voice clarity. So, the complainant approached the OP No.1 who suggested him to contact OP No.2 and thus the complainant contacted Op No.2 who on checking the mobile set told him that the defects could not be removed by them and the mobile set requires to be sent to OP No.3 i.e. manufacturing company and it will be sent back  by OP company after a week and thus the OP No.2 retained the mobile set without giving any receipt thereof. It has been further submitted that the repaired mobile set worked properly for about 20 days but thereafter, it again created the problems mentioned earlier. The complainant again contacted the OP No.2 on 30.08.2013 who suggested that the mobile set will be sent to OP No.3 for its replacement and a service request receipt bearing No.07100135D8192 dated 30.08.2013 was issued in this regard but of no avail and ultimately, the complainant had to purchase a new mobile set.  Hence, the complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in prayer clause of complaint.

2.                Upon notice Ops No.2 & 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of the complaint etc. On merits, contents of the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint whereas OP No.1 put in appearance on 22.01.2014 but thereafter he did not bother to appear and thus he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.02.2014.

3.                     In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, the appearing Ops No.2 & 3 did not tender any evidence rather their counsel tendered a statement that  he does not want to lead any evidence on behalf of Ops No.2 & 3 and written statement filed by them be read in their evidence.

4.                     We have heard the complainant as well as learned counsel for the OP No.2 & 3 and gone through the case file very carefully.  The main grievance of the complainant is that he purchased the mobile  set in question from the OP No.1 on 15.10.2012 for a sum of Rs.2150/- and after sometime, the mobile phone started creating problems of ‘poor signals, voice clarity etc.’ and the problems were rectified by OP No.2. But after 20 days, the said problems again occurred and complainant approached the OP No.2 who  received the mobile set and send it for repair to OP No.3-company in the month of August 2013. Thereafter, despite various visits of complainant to the service centre of the OP as well as contacting the OP company  on phone  even  writing  a letter, they did not return the mobile set till today and ultimately the complainant has to purchase a new mobile set from M/s Dashing Mobile amounting to Rs.1600/- vide Annexure C-4 whereas the mobile set of complainant was well within warranty period. The complainant in support of his case has placed on record, documents Annexure C-1 i.e. purchase bill of the mobile set in question, Annexure C-2 i.e.  service job sheet and Annexure C-3 i.e. letter written to OP-company.

                        On the other hand, the counsel for OP No.2 & 3 has argued that the mobile set of the complainant  was  having some minor defect and it was retained by them for its repair  and the defects were removed but the complainant never approached them to take back the mobile set.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops No.2 & 3.

5.                     After hearing the parties and going through the record, it is crystal clear from document Annexure C-1 that the mobile set in question was sold by the OP No.1 to the complainant which was having one year warranty from the date of its purchase and it is also undisputed that the set in question was having some defect and the complainant deposited the same with their service centre and till today the same has not been returned to the complainant after rectification of the defects. Further the version put by the OP No.2  & 3 that the complainant never came to their  Service Centre to take back the mobile set is not tenable because no any document/affidavit  has been placed on record by the Ops wherefrom it is proved that the defects of the mobile set were removed and complainant  voluntarily did not collected the mobile set whereas on the other hand, the version of the complainant is believable as the complainant has written letter to the OP company (Annexure C-3) in this regard but no reply of this letter was sent by the Op No.3 to the complainant. Moreover, said compliant was filed by the complainant on 26.09.2013 and Ops No.2 & 3 put in appearance on 24.12.2013 but since then, the Ops No.2 & 3 never offered to the complainant  before  the Forum that they are ready to return the repaired set to the complainant. As such, it is a clear cut case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  Accordingly, the complaint is accepted and Ops No.2 & 3 are directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of the order:-

1. To return the cost of mobile set  to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2150/- alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of  purchase of the mobile set till its realization.
2. And to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- on account of mental agony and harassment as the complainant remained deprived of  from the facility of mobile phone.
3. Also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as costs of litigation.

 

                        Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts  shall attract further simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is allowed in above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

                                                                                                    

Announced:05.06.2015

                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                        (A.K. SARDANA)

                     PRESIDENT               

                                                                                                 Sd/-

            (ANIL SHARMA)

                                                                                            MEMBER