DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Complaint Case No: 63 of 2012]

Neha Sharma resident of #704, Phase VI, Mohali (Pb.).

                                                                   ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Meridian Mobile Pvt. Ltd., L-2A, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi 110016.

2.                 G.S.M. Masters, Quiet Office-4, Sec.35A, Chandigarh.

3.                 Anmol Watches & Electronics (P) Ltd., SCO 1012-13, Sec.22-B, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Vivek Kumar Sharma, Authorised agent of complainant.

                   OPs ex-parte.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Ms. Neha Sharma has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking the following relief :-

“That I want either the replacement of the above said handset and claim of Rupee 7500 or the claim of Rupees 12,000 in total which will include the cost of phone-3690, cost of legal procedure Rupee 4000, mental harassment claim Rupee 3000, the transportation cost, wastage of my and my husband’s time.”

2.                           The case of the complainant, in brief, is that she purchased a Fly make mobile (B470 black 910551600178116) from Opposite party No.3 vide invoice dated 4.2.2011 for consideration of Rs.3,690/-.    According to the complainant, soon after its purchase, the said mobile set started giving problems of hanging, defect in speaker etc.  So, she visited the authorised service centre i.e. opposite party No.2 and handed over the same to them for repairs.  The said handset was returned after 3-4 days after having been repaired.  However, it again started giving the same problems and had to be taken to the Authorised Centre 5-6 times again for repairs.  The complainant visited the said authorised Service Centre where she was told that the speaker is not available with them and that the same is awaited from the company.  They asked the complainant to visit again after sometime.  According to the complainant, she visited the authorised service centre a number of times, but each time she was told that the speaker has not been received.  Ultimately, the person present at the authorised service centre refused to repair the handset and also refused to replace the same with a new handset despite the fact that a promise to this effect was made to her.  It has further been pleaded that she also visited opposite party No.3 for replacement of the handset, but it also refused to do so.  Ultimately, she served a legal notice but to no effect.  In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed.

3.                           Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties but none appeared on their behalf, hence they were proceeded against exparte. 

4.                           We have heard the authorised agent of the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.

5.                           The averments made by the complainant stands corroborated from the affidavit filed by her and the invoice dated 4.2.2011 placed on record by her.  It has been specifically pleaded by the complainant that the newly purchased mobile handset started giving problems two months after its purchase and, despite the fact that it was repaired by Opposite Party No.2, the same problems continued and further that the handset has not been repaired so far despite her several visits to the Authorised Service Centre of Opposite Party No.1. 

6.                           As opposite party No.2 has failed to repair the mobile handset, despite having been taken to it a number of times, it is presumed that there is some inherent manufacturing defect in the handset.  In these circumstances, failure to replace the handset, or refund of its price, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

7.                           In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed and the OPs, are directed to -

(i)                refund the sum of Rs.3,690/- to the complainant, being the price of the handset in question;

 (ii)    pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;

(iii)   pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

8.                           This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) above shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment to the complainant, besides payment of litigation costs.

9.                           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced.

13.07.2012

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

hg