BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.578 of 2019
Date of Instt. 06.12.2019
Date of Decision: 27.04.2021
Gurpreet Singh aged about 41 years s/o Surjit Singh resident of #8/31, Mohala Gujjran Wala, Banga, Distt. SBS Nagar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Juneja Creations, 2, Model Town Jalandhar, Punjab.
2. Fatch Enterprises, Shop No.4, 8/1, Green Park, Opp to All India Radio Station, Near Lajwanti Hospital, Jalandhar, Punjab.
3. The Care Manager, HMD Mobile Inida Pvt. Ltd. Flat No.820-B, 8th Floor Naurang, House 21 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi- 110001, India through its Managing Director.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Ms. Bhavneet Gaur, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
OPs exparte.
Order
Kuljit Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he purchased a Mobile Phone bearing Model name Nokia 8.1 having its IMEI No.356964090691665 from Juneja Creations, Jalandhar i.e. OP No.1 on dated 27.02.2019 for a sum of Rs.25,400/-. That a bill/cash memo bearing No.T-5051 dated 27.02.2019 for the payment made by the complainant was also given by the OP No.1. The copy of the receipt/cash memo dated 27.02.2019 is Ex.C-1. That within a week from the date of purchase i.e. 27.02.2019, the said mobile phone was not giving satisfactory service to the complainant as there was a problem of call dropping in the handset and also has auto restart problem. Firstly, the complainant thought that there is network or service problem, therefore the complainant changed his existing sim card to a new sim card but again the same thing happened and the problem of call dropping and auto restart problem of the handset not solved. That the complainant on 20.03.2019 took the mobile phone to the OP No.1 from where the complainant purchased the mobile phone and reported the matter to OP No.1 and at that time the OP No.1 told the complainant to took the mobile phone to the service centre of the Nokia Company i.e. OP No.2. That on the saying of OP No.1, the complainant went to the service centre of the Nokia Company i.e. OP No.2 on dated 12.04.2019 in order to get the mobile phone repaired. After checking the warranty period and bill of the mobile phone othe OP No.2 kept the mobile phone with them and told the complainant that they will check the mobile phone and if any format/repair has to be done they will format/repair the mobile phone and ask the complainant to collect the same in the evening i.e. on 12.04.2019. As per their advice the complainant handed over the defective handset in their service centre. The service centre after receiving the defective handset from the complainant issued a receipt to the complainant. The copy of the service receipt issued by the OP No.2 is Ex.C-2. The complainant on the same day i.e. 12.04.2019 at around 04:00 PM again went to the service centre of the Nokia Company i.e. OP No.2 as told by the OP No.2 to collect the mobile phone in the evening and on the asking of the complainant the OP No.2 informed the complainant that the mobile phone is not repaired yet and it has to be send to the company in order to get it repaired and told the complainant to collect the handset within a week. That on the saying of the OP No.2, the complainant on dated 02.05.2019 went again to the service centre of the Nokia Company i.e. OP No.2 in order to collect the mobile phone but again the OP No.2 informed/told the complainant that the handset is with the company and whenever the OP No.2 received the mobile phone from the company they will inform the complainant. That thereafter from 05.05.2019 to 10.07.2019 the complainant went abroad to Australia because of his personal work and from their also the complainant made the call to the OP No.2 in order to know whether the mobile phone got repaired or not. And at that time also the OP No.2 told the complainant that you will get your mobile phone when you came back to India. That after returning from aborad Australia, the complainant on dated 17.07.2019 went to the service centre of the Noka Company in order to collect the mobile phone and at that time also same reply was given by the OP No.2 that the mobile phone is with the company and same is not received back from the company yet. That again on 07.08.2019 and 30.08.2019, the complainant went to the service centre of the Nokia Company i.e. OP No.2 in order to know whereabouts of the mobile phone, but no information was given by them. That again on 05.09.2019 the complainant went to the OP No.2 in order to inquire about his mobile phone. Instead of returning the mobile phone to the complainant the OP No.2 took the receipt back from the complainant which was issued by the OP No.2 on 12.04.2019 and made the note on the same that the handset with service centre and after signing the same returned back the same to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of returning the receipt the official of OP No.2 has deliberately cut the signature of the complainant on original receipt dated 12.04.2019, copy of the same is Ex.C-3. Till date the mobile phone is neither repaired nor returned back to the cmop by the service centre i.e. OP No.2. That on 14.09.2019, a written complaint was also delivered at the office of the Care Manager, HMD Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. i.e. OP No.3 by the complainant, but till date no reply was given by the OP No.3 regarding the complaint made by the complainant. That due to the failure of the OPs to provide services, the complainant has suffered a great loss and injury due to harassment and mental agony for which the complainant is entitled to compensation and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the cost of the mobile phone Rs.25,400/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and mental torture and harassment and further OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service all the OPs did not come present and ultimately, all the OPs were proceeded against exparte.
3. In order to prove his case, the counsel for the complainant produced on the file affidavit of the complainant alongwith some documents at the time of filing the complaint.
4. We have heard the argument of learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the complainant, very carefully.
5. It is established on the file that the allegations made in the complaint has been already conveyed to the OP by visiting many times to the service centre of the OP on different dates i.e. 12.04.2019, 02.05.2019, 17.07.2019, 07.08.2019, 30.08.2019 and 05.09.2019 and copy of the Job Sheets are Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, but despite becoming aware about the manufacturing defect in the mobile phone, all the OPs did not bother and they never call upon the complainant to get rectify his mobile and thereafter, the complainant filed the instant complaint and notice of this complaint was also served upon all the OPs, but despite service again OPs did not bother to appear in the Commission and they were proceeded against exparte and ultimately, the allegations of the complainant are remained un-rebutted and un-challenged because there is no rebuttal evidence came on the file qua the allegations of complainant.
6. In order to give strength to the allegations as made in the complaint, the counsel for the complainant submitted that the mobile in question is within warranty period when first time a defect was occurred qua call dropping problem as well as auto restart problem. No doubt, the complainant has brought on the file copy of the service receipt issued by the OP No.2, from this document, one thing is clear that the complainant deposited his handset to the service, which shows that some defect was occurred in the mobile phone, but in order to controvert the allegation of the complainant that there is repeatedly defect has been occurred, the OP has not appeared in the witness box. So, in the absence of any evidence on the part of the OPs, we have no option except to accept the un-rebutted evidence of the complainant i.e. there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile phone, if so, then complainant is entitled for the refund of the price of the mobile set along with compensation, interest and litigation expenses.
7. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is exparte, partly accepted and all the OPs are directed to refund the price of the mobile phone i.e. Rs.25,400/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 27.02.2019, till realization and further, OPs are directed to pay compensation to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.5000/- for causing mental tension and harassment including cost of litigation. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work and spread of Covid-19.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission
27th of April 2021
Kuljit Singh
(President)
Jyotsna
(Member)
