Haryana

Ambala

CC/294/2013

SANJAY JOSHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.L AND SON'S, TABLET PC AND MOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

JATIN AGGARWAL

19 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 294 of 2013

                                                          Date of Institution         : 12.11.2013

                                                          Date of decision   :  19.01.2017

          Sanjay Joshi S/o Sh. Ram Murti, Resident of House No. 8917/5, Naya Bans,    Ambala City.   

……. Complainant.

1. K.L. & Son’s AYNC Tablet’s PC & Mobile SUPER STOCKIEST, 178, Kalarheri, Ambala Cantt-133001.
2. Cell Point (Ambala Cantt), Shop No. 13/13, Idgah Road, near RMS Cooperative Bank, Near Pargat Shiv Mandir, Ambala Cantt. Haryana-133001 through its signatory Mrs. Ajay.
3. ZYNC Global Pvt. Ltd., % B-16, Sector-2, Nodia, India-201301, TIN No. 07190415285 (New Delhi) through its General Manager.

 

 ….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

 

 

Present:       Sh. Jain Aggarwal, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Anupam Sharma, counsel for the OP no. 1.

                   OP No. 2 and 3 already exparte.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a new Zync mobile set vide model No. Z5-Tablet for a sum of                      Rs. 8700/- vide bill No. 008 dated 26.12.2012 from OP No. 1 which was having one year warranty and the mobile phone started giving problems after 5 months like mobile was not charging and other problems. Further submitted that the complainant deposited his mobile in question to the OP No. 2 on 28.05.2013 which is service centre of OP No. 3 and OP No. 2 assured to the complainant his mobile will be return to him after one week but neither the Ops are repaired the mobile in question nor returned to the complainant till date. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice Op No. 1 appeared and filed written statement in which submitting that the complainant after purchase of the said mobile never informed/reported the defects he faced in the said mobile to the Op No. 1 nor made any visit to him till filing the present complaint and the answering respondent is not aware about the defect in the said mobile, it is between the complainant and other Ops.

                   On the other hand, OPs No. 2 and 3 not bothered to appear despite issuance of notice as such OP No. 2 is proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 17.01.2014 and OP No. 3 is proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 23.04.2014

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-3 and close his evidence. On the other hand, OP No. 1 has tendered affidavit annexure R-X  alongwith document annexure R-1 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file. The case of complainant is that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone vide model No. Z5-Tablet for a sum of Rs. 8700/- from OP No. 1 vide serial no. 008  dated 26.12.2012 Annexure C1 which was having one year warranty started giving problems as per job Sheet (Annexure C-2) having ‘Charging not store”.  Perusal of the job sheet reveals that the mobile set occurred problems due to its charging not store and the version of complainant duly supported by his affidavit reveals that the mobile in question started giving problems i.e. mobile was not charging within its warranty period inspite of various visits by complainant, neither repaired the mobile in question nor replaced the same by Ops till date. It is clear that mobile in question is not charging properly due to its manufacture defect which could not be rectified by Ops. The Ops No.2 & 3 despite registered notice not pursued the case and they were proceeded against exparte. As such, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant.

                   We find that the OP No. 1 has sold the defective mobile which was manufactured by OP No. 3 and service centre has not rendered the proper service to the complainant who is a franchisee of the Op No. 3 i.e. Manufacturer Company. So, the Ops are liable to replace the mobile in question or to refund the costs of the mobile in question.

5.                In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with costs and Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To replace the Mobile set in question with a new one of the same model. If the same model is not available then to refund the cost of mobile set to the tune of Rs.8700/- as per Annexure C-1 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization. It is made clear if the amount is recovered from Ops No. 1 and 2 then the both i.e. dealer and service centre can recover the amount from their manufacturer i.e. Op No. 3.

 (ii)    Also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

                   Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :    19.01.2017                                              Sd/-

                                                                                  (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                             Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member