DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                   Complaint Case No.: 1397 of 2009

 Date of Inst: 21.10.2009

                              Date of Decision:26.03.2009

Anil Kumar Wadhawan r/o H.No.1158, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

                                                                   ---Complainant

V E R S U S

1.      Hotspots Retails Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Booth No.150, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

2.      Spice Mobiles Ltd., D-1, Sector 3, Noida -201301.

---Opposite Parties

QUORUM         

                        SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA        PRESIDENT

                        SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI     MEMBER

PRESENT:           Sh.P.K.Kukreja, Adv. for complainant

OPs No.1 and 2 exparte.

                                                          ---

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

                   Sh.Anil Kumar Wadhawan has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to:-

i)                   pay a sum of Rs.7900/- being the price of phone along with interest @ 18% from the date of its purchase till its realization.

ii)                 pay a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

iii)              Pay a sum of Rs.11000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased Spice D 88n Black Mobile from OP-1 vide invoice dated 243 dated 19.06.2008 for Rs.7900/-. The said mobile phone was covered under warranty of two years and one year additional service warranty.  According to the complainant, in the month of July, 2009 the said mobile developed problems and its keypad stopped working due to which the same was handed over to OP-1 for its repair vide job sheet NO.40 dated 20.07.2009. According to the complainant, OPs failed to return the said mobile set after its repair on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the complainant served a notice dated 04.09.2009 but to no effect. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                In its written statement, OP-1 admitted that the mobile phone in question has been purchased for Rs.7900/- on 19.06.2008. However, it has been pleaded that the mobile handset has been repaired and is lying with the outlet and the complainant was informed regarding the same but he failed to collect the same. It has further been pleaded that there is no manufacturing defect in the handset in question. In these circumstances, according to OP-1 there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part the complaint deserves to be dismissed qua it.

4.                In the written statement filed by OP-2 almost all the identical objections have been taken as has been taken by OP-1. According to OP-2,  there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part the complaint deserves to be dismissed qua it.

5.                None appeared on behalf of the OPs at the time of arguments. As the case was  already fixed for arguments, therefore, we decided to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with section 13(2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date even in the absence of the learned counsel for the OPs. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the record very carefully.

6.                Annexure C-2  is the copy of the invoice No. 243 dated 19.06.2008 whereby the mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant for a sum of 7900/-. Annexure C-2 is the warranty card which shows that the phone in question is covered under warranty of two years and one year additional service warranty.  Annexure C-3 is the copy of the job card dated 20.07.2009 whereby the complainant handed over the mobile set to OP-1 for effecting the necessary repairs. The complainant in his affidavit deposed that the handset in question has not been returned after its repairs. It has been pleaded by OPs that the mobile set has been repaired and the same is lying with the outlet but the complainant has failed to collect the same despite intimation. The OPs have not placed on record any documentary evidence which shows that any intimation was sent to the complainant for collecting the mobile phone after its repairs.  Even the repaired handset was not produced before the Forum. Thus, OPs have failed to return the handset after its repair to the complainant which amounts deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

7.                In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs to give a sum of Rs.7900/- to the complainant being the price of the mobile phone in question. OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.

8.                This order be complied with by OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay Rs.9900/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint till its realization besides costs of litigation.

9.                Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

26.03.2010

Sd/-

 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Cm

Sd/-

 (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER