DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.254 of 03-06-2011 Decided on 27-07-2011
Harjinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate, aged about 33 years, District Courts, Bathnda. .......Complainant Versus
Kataria Watch & Mobile Junction, Court Road, PRTC Market, Shop No.19, Near New Bus Stand, Bathinda, through its Proprietor. RV Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Service Support Group, 2901-2902, Arya Samaj Road, Beadon Pura, Krolbagh, New Delhi- 110005, through its Managing Director.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member. Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh. Harjinder Singh, Advocate, complainant in person. For Opposite parties: Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an ’Act’). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one mobile handset of Lephone Model F200 from the opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.1,700/-, marketed by the opposite party No.2 on 22.01.2011 but no bill was issued by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant despite his repeated requests. The opposite party No.1 gave one year warranty on the said mobile handset in written on the back of their card. After one month of its purchase, it started giving problem in blue tooth setting. For this, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 who took the set from the complainant for repair and kept it for ten days. After ten days, the opposite party No.1 returned the said mobile set to the complainant on the pretext that the fault cannot be repaired. The complainant asked the opposite party No.1 to replace the said mobile handset with new one as the same is within warranty period but the opposite party No.1 refused to do so. Now, about four week back, the said mobile handset has encountered another problem i.e. there is a line on screen display. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.1 for removing the fault but it did not listen to the request of the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile handset with new one or to refund the price of the said mobile handset with interest @ 18% p.a. alongwith cost and compensation. 2. The opposite party No.2 has filed its separate written statement and admitted that the complainant had purchased mobile handset of Lephone Model F200 from the opposite party No.1. The company has not given any warranty of the said mobile handset and the opposite party No.1 has given warranty on its own accord. The opposite party No.2 has no business relationship with the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 has further pleaded that the complainant never approached the opposite party No.2 at any time or he has given any intimation to it regarding the problem of the mobile handset in question. 3. The opposite party No.2 after filing the written statement, has not appeared before this Forum. Hence, ex-parte proceedings are taken against the opposite party No.2. 4. The opposite party No.1 despite service of notice/summons has failed to appear before this Forum. Thus, ex-parte proceedings are taken against the opposite party No.1. 5. The complainant led evidence in support of his pleadings Ex. C-1 his own affidavit, Ex.C-2 photocopy of visiting card, Ex.C-3 photocopy of legal notice, Ex.C-4 & Ex.C-5 postal receipts and Ex.C-6 affidavit of Sh. Harjinder Singh dated 16.07.2011. 6. Arguments led by the learned counsel of the complainant heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 7. The complainant purchased the mobile handset Model F200, from the opposite party No.1 for the payment of Rs.1,700/-, it became defective after one month of its purchase. It started giving problem in blue tooth setting. For that, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for repair who kept it for 10 days and thereafter, returned the same on the ground that the fault cannot be repaired. The complainant asked for the replacement of the said mobile handset as the fault occurred within one month from its purchase. Again four weeks ago, the mobile handset in question has started giving problem in it as there is line on the screen display and the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for removing the defect but the opposite party No.1 refused to entertain the complaint. The warranty of the said mobile handset was given for one year and the mobile handset has suffered all the problems during warranty period. The opposite party No.2 in its written statement on merit has submitted that the Company has not given warranty of the abovesaid mobile handset and the opposite party No.1 has given the warranty of the said mobile handset on its own. Moreover, the opposite party No.2 has no business relation with the opposite party No.1. 8. The opposite party No.1 has issued a visiting card Ex.C-2 to the complainant, a perusal of this visiting card shows that at the back side of this, it has been mentioned that:- “One set Lephone, warranty one year, F200.” No bill has been issued by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant. The complainant has also sent a legal notice to the opposite party Nos.1&2 vide Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5. The complainant has specifically deposed in his affidavit Ex. C-6 in para no.1 that no bill was issued by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant despite his repeated requests rather the opposite party No.1 gave one year warranty on the abovesaid mobile handset as written on the back side of their visiting card whereas the opposite party No.2 has mentioned in para no.4 of their written statement on merit that the opposite party No.1 has given the warranty on its own. The said mobile handset has developed the problem within warranty period but the opposite party No.1 refused to entertain the complainant. Thereafter, there is line on the screen display but the opposite party No.1 refused to remove the defect and has also denied the warranty of one year. No bill has been issued by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant, it simply wrote down the warranty on the visiting card and has also not entertained the complainant itself nor referred him to its service station. 9. The opposite party No.2 after filing the reply, never appeared before this Forum. No evidence was led by the opposite party No.2. The act and conduct of the opposite party No.2 shows that there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.1 is liable for not issuing the proper bill to the customer/consumer/ complainant, whereas it is mandatory to issue the bill to each and every customer under the provisions of the law. Non-issuance of the bill in itself tentamounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 10. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs.2,000/- as cost and compensation jointly and severally against the opposite parties. The opposite parties are further directed to rectify the defects in the mobile handset in question and issue fresh warranty of further one year. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance, interest @ 9% p.a. will yield on the awarded amount till realization. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ’ Pronounced 27.07.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member | 
