DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

   CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.22 of 15

                                       DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 22-01-2015

                                                   DATE OF ORDER: 10-11-2016

Sarjit Singh aged 55 years son of Shri Hoshiar Singh, resident of village Gopi, PO Gopi, District Bhiwani.

              ……………Complainant.

VERSUS                     

1. Jeenu Gift Shop, 52 Adrash College Market, Hansi Gate Bhiwani through its Proprietor.

1. Saini Mobile Point, New Bazar Sukhdev Bhawan, Bhiwani.

1. Spice Mobile Company, S Global Knowledge Park Sector 125 Noida (UP).

………….. Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: -    Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.

Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

Mrs. Sudesh, Member.

Present:-    Complainant in person.

                   Ops no. 1 & 2 exparte.

                   Sh. Madan Singh Parmar, Advocate for OP no. 3.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                        In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that on 12.07.2014 he had purchased a mobile phone bearing IMEI no. 911304953648593 and 911304953648585  vide cash memo no. 42076 dated 12.07.2014 of Spice MI 349 set for a sum of Rs. 3400/- in cash and bill was issued to OP no. 1 with one year warranty.   It is alleged that soon after purchase the Hand Set became defective within warranty period and complaint was lodged with the respondents. It is alleged that he made requests several time to time to OP no. 1 to change the said mobile or return the price of the same received by him but earlier he went on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. It is alleged that he has deposited his mobile handset with OP no. 2 vide job sheet dated 23.12.2014 and since then the mobile handset is lying with OP no. 2 who has not return the same after repairs. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops he has to suffer mental agony, harassment and humiliation.  Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint & prayed for change the said mobile and seeking compensation.

2.                     OPs no. 1 & 2 have failed to come present.  Hence they were  proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.03.2015.

3.                     Opposite party no. 3 on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the answering respondent possesses a goodwill and have an established market and have assumed a good reputation over the years in respect of the business, which they carry out. It is submitted that the limited warranty of the mobile handset and battery has already expired.   It is submitted that under ordinary circumstances bona fide action has been taken by the answering respondent, which cannot be held to be as deficiency in service.  It is submitted that whenever the complainant approached the service centre for any repairing work, he was given due and proper services and the duly repaired handset was handed over to him in a fully working condition.  It is submitted that the complainant has failed to provide any documentary evidence in support of his statement.  It is submitted that the answering respondent has no idea about the alleged conversation held between OP no. 1, 2 and complainant about the alleged defects in the handset.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.                     In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-2 alongwith supporting affidavit.

5.                     We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the complainant in person and counsel for the OP no. 3.

6.                     The complainant reiterated the contents of his complaint.  He submitted that he has deposited his mobile handset with OP no. 2 vide job sheet dated 23.12.2014 Annexure C-2.  Since then the mobile handset is lying with OP no. 2 who has not return the same after repairs.

7.                    Learned Counsel for OP no. 3 reiterated the contents of the reply.  He submitted that the limited warranty of the mobile handset and battery has already expired.  The complainant is not entitled to claim any relief from the answering respondent/OP.

8.                     In the context of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the material on record.  The complainant had purchased the mobile handset in question on 12.07.2014 vide bill no. 42076 is Annexure C-1 for Rs. 3400/- and after about 5 months it became faulty.  The OP no. 2 is at fault because he has failed to return the mobile handset to the complainant duly repaired in working condition within the reasonable time.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 3200/- to the complainant as full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant.   Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated:.10-11-2016.                

                                                                                                  (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                                       President

                                                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                         Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

                        (Anamika Gupta)         (Sudesh)

                            Member                   Member