BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.273 of 2015

Date of Instt. 22.06.2015

Date of Decision :08.09.2015

Rajesh Kumar Bhandari son of Surinder Kumar R/o H.No.728/8, Housing Board Colony, Backside GTB Nagar Gurudwara, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Huawei Technologies Co.Ltd, Huawei Industrial Base, Bantian, Longgang, Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China through its Managing Director/Partner/Area Manager/Zonal Manager/Representative/Agent.

2. Aditya Televentures Pvt Ltd, (Importers of Huawei Mobiles in India), 159 Somani Building, MI Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302001 through its Managing Director/Partner/Area Manager/Zonal Manager/ Representative/Agent.

3. Shree Communications, Authorized Service Centre, Shop No.5, G.S.Bajwa Complex, Opposite Friends Bakery, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar City through its Prop./Partner/Representative/Agent.

4. Mobile House, H.O:-Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/ Representative/Agent.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Notice to opposite party No.1 dispensed with.

Opposite parties No.2 & 4 exparte.

Sh.Akash Batra, Auth.Rep.of opposite party No.3.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased Huawei 3C(Honor) having model No.H30 U10 mobile phone with IMEI No.359209029188723 vide cash memo having invoice No.14269 dated 20.6.2014 for Rs.14,500/- from opposite party No.4. The opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of Huawei 3C (Honor) having model No.H30 U10 mobile phones and opposite party No.2 is the importers of Huawei mobiles phones in India and whereas opposite party No.3 is the approved authorized service centre of Huawei Mobiles in Jalandhar. The warranty of the said mobile handset was given for 12 months by the opposite party No.4 as per the specification of the company and it was assured to the complainant that in case of any major defect the mobile handset will be immediately replaced. The above said mobile phone worked properly only for 7/8 months from the date of its purchase and thereafter, it started creating problem regarding internet. The complainant approached the opposite party No.4 and informed them regarding the said problem. The opposite party No.4 referred the complainant to the opposite party No.3, as they are the approved authorized service centre of Huawei Mobiles in Jalandhar. The complainant then went to the service centre of Huawei Mobile phones i.e to opposite party No.3 on 24.4.2015 and showed his mobile phone to them and narrated the problem regarding internet of said mobile handset. The opposite party No.3 received the said mobile handset from the complainant and tried to remove the problem from the said mobile handset and after few attempts, when they failed to remove the problem from the said mobile phone set, they told the complainant that there is some major defect in the said mobile phone set and it is to be sent to the company for the removal of the defect and they further told to the complainant that this process may take 15 to 20 days. The complainant wanted to remove the defect from the said mobile handset and handed over his said mobile handset to the opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.3 received the said mobile phone from the complainant vide challan No.2603 dated 24.4.2015. The complainant inquired about his said mobile phone after 15 days from the opposite party No.3 but they told the complainant that the set will come after 20 days from the date it has been sent to the company. The complainant then continuously remained in touch with the opposite party No.3 and ultimately on 19.5.2015 when the complainant made phone call to the opposite party No.3 to check about the status of his said mobile phone, the employee of the opposite party No.3 told the complainant that his mobile set has come from the company and the complainant can collect the same from their office. The complainant then rushed to the office of the opposite party No.3 and received the said mobile phone from the opposite party No.3. The complainant then after receiving the mobile set from the opposite party No.3, inserted his SIM in the said mobile phone in the office of opposite party No.3, the complainant was shocked to see that now his said mobile set is not showing any network of SIM. The complainant then immediately showed his mobile phone to the employee of opposite party No.3. The employee of opposite party No.3 after having scrutinized the mobile phone of the complainant told the complainant that there is some defect left in the mobile, which was not properly removed and the employee of opposite party No.3 further told the complainant that said mobile handset should be left with them and they will talk to the company for the removal of the defect. The opposite party No.3 again retained the said mobile phone set of the complainant vide challan No.2610 on 19.5.2015 i.e on the same day when the complainant received his mobile phone first time after 24.4.2015, with the assurance that the said defect will be removed within 2/3 days. The mobile phone of the complainant is still lying with the opposite party No.3 from 24.4.2015 till date. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for refund of the cost of the mobile i.e Rs.14,500/-. He has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Notice to opposite party No.1 was dispensed with as it is situated abroad.

3. Opposite parties No.2 and 4 did not appear after notice and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

4. However, Sh.Akash Batra, Authorized Representative on behalf of opposite party No.3 appeared but did not file any written reply and suffered a statement on 21.8.2015 to the effect that opposite party No.3 is ready to give new box packed mobile phone of the same make and model to the complainant and it is not to file any written reply or lead evidence.

5. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and authorized representative of opposite party No.3.

7. The fact that opposite party No.3 is ready to give new box packed mobile of the same make and model to the complainant clearly suggest that the earlier mobile handset sold to the complainant was defective and was beyond repair. However, opposite party No.3 became ready to give new mobile handset to the complainant only after the complainant has filed the present complaint. So complainant is entitled to compensation and litigation expenses.

8. In the above circumstances of the case, the present complaint is disposed off with the directions to opposite party No.3 to give new box packed mobile phone of the same make and model to the complainant with fresh warranty of six months. The opposite party No.3 is also directed to give Rs.3000/- in lump sum as compensation and litigation expenses. Compliance be made with one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

08.09.2015 Member Member President