Punjab

Sangrur

CC/656/2016

Rajinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.P.S.Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Shergill

20 Jan 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 656                                                                                        

                                                                  Instituted on:  09.11.2016

                                                                   Decided on:    20.01.2017

 

Rajinder Kumar son of Sh. Mohan Lal, resident of H.No.159, Street No.1, Ward No.11, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Dhuri Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.   

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         

Versus

 

1.     M.P.S. Telecom Private Limited, 702-A, Arunachal Building, 19, Bara Khama Road, Canaught Palace,  New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director.

2.     TVS Electronics Limited, Shop No.0304, FF, Ansal Plaza, opposite Circuit House, Ferozpur Road, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

3.     Chhabra Communication, Opposite Bus Stand, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ partner.

      ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri G.S.Shergill,  Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES      :     Exparte                   

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Rajinder Kumar, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground  on 21.09.2015 he purchased a  mobile phone of HTC company  Model 626G+ from OP no.3 for an amount of Rs.15,500/-  vide bill number 4050 dated 21.09.2015  under  one year guarantee/ warranty .  In the month of  May 2016,  the mobile set started giving problems of display and battery backup  for which OP no.2 was approached who  kept the mobile set and issued job sheet dated 20.05.2016. Thereafter the OP no.2 handed over the mobile set after repair to the complainant but again  on 21.07.2016 it started giving same problem for which he again approached the OP no.2 and when OP  no.2 opened the mobile set for repair then display of the set broken and told the complainant if you want to install new touch screen/panel  then you have to pay Rs.4800/- .  The complainant requested the OP no.3  to replace the mobile set with new one as same is within the warranty period but they did not do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to refund  the purchase price  of the mobile set i.e. Rs.15,500/-  along with interest @18% per annum,  

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service the OPs did not appear and as such the OPs were proceeded exparte.

3.             In his exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed evidence.

4.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that on 21.09.2015 the complainant purchased a  mobile phone of HTC company  Model 626G+ from OP no.3 for an amount of Rs.15,500/-  vide bill number 4050 dated 21.09.2015  under  one year guarantee/ warranty.  In the month of  May 2016,  the mobile set started giving problems of display and battery backup  for which OP no.2 was approached who  kept the mobile set and issued job sheet dated 20.05.2016 which is Ex.C-3 on record. Thereafter the OP no.2 handed over the mobile set after repair to the complainant. It is further case of the complainant  that again  on 21.07.2016 the mobile set in question started giving same problem for which he again approached the OP no.2 and when OP  no.2 opened the mobile set for repair then display of the set broken and OP No.2 told the complainant if you want to install new touch screen/panel  then you have to pay Rs.4800/-.  Surprisingly, the complainant has not produced any job sheet issued by the OP no.2 on 21.07.2016 nor he has stated anything about it.  Moreover, the complainant has not produced on record any document which shows that the OP no.2  demanded an amount of Rs.4800/- as repair charges i.e.  for the installation of new touch screen/panel.  So, we feel that the complainant has failed  proved that the mobile set in question has any manufacturing defect  and as such the OPs are not liable to replace the mobile set in question.

 

5.             In view of the facts stated above, we partly allow the present complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to repair the mobile set in question of the complainant. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1000/-  on account of litigation expenses.

6.             This order of ours shall be complied within 30 days as per abovementioned order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                 

                Announced

                January 20, 2017

 

 

 

( Vinod Kumar Gulati)  ( Sarita Garg)               (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                       Member                   Member                         President

 

 

 

 

 

BBS/-