BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.530 of 2015
Date of Instt. 17.12.2015
Date of Decision : 29.09.2016
Anoop Kumar aged about 21 years son of Sarabjit, R/o H.No.WB287, Ali Mohalla, Jalandhar now at 1101, Rajput Nagar, Model House, near Sati Mandir, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1.Mobile House, Phagwara Gate, near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Representative.
2.Gopal Telecom, Jaina Marketing, Nirmal Complex, 1st Floor, near Namdev Chowk, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/Manager/ Authorized Representative.
3.Jaina Mobile India Pvt Ltd., D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110020 through its MD/Authorized Representative.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.
OP No.1 exparte.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of 'The Consumer Protection Act' against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that the complainant purchased mobile Karboon Titanium X from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 25.12.2014 for a sum of Rs.10,800/- with warranty of one year. The said mobile set became out of order in the first week of October 2015. Various defects arisen in it. Its censer, flash light, accessories, head phone, charger, USB cable etc., failed to work. The complainant handed over the defective mobile set to OP No.2 authorized service centre of the company for repair vide job sheet dated 6.10.2015 but OP No.2 did not repair the mobile set. Since then the mobile set has been lying with OP No.2 and they did not repair the same nor returned the same to the complainant.
2. Upon notice, OPs No.2 & 3 appeared through counsel and filed a written reply pleaded that the OPs booked the handset of the complainant on 6.10.2015 and OP No.2 issued job sheet and repaired the handset of the complainant and after repair of the handset the OP No.2 make various calls to the complainant to visit and collect the handset as the handset is ready for the delivery, but the complainant did not turn back to receive the handset.
3. Notice of this complaint was given to the OP No.1 but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such it was proceeded against exparte.
4. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant purchased mobile Karboon Titanium X from OP No.1 vide invoice Ex.C1 dated 25.12.2014 for a sum of Rs.10,800/- with warranty of one year. The said mobile set became out of order in the first week of October 2015. Various defects arisen in it. Its censer, flash light, accessories, head phone, charger, USB cable etc., failed to work. The complainant handed over the defective mobile set to OP No.2 authorized service centre of the company for repair vide job sheet dated 6.10.2015 Ex.C2 but OP No.2 did not repair the mobile set. Since then the mobile set has been lying with the OP No.2 and they did not repair the same nor returned the same to the complainant. The complainant requested so many times to OP No.2 to repair his mobile set but OP No.2 neither repaired the mobile set nor replaced it.
8. The plea of the OPs No.2 & 3 is that they repaired the mobile set of the complainant and made various calls to the complainant to collect the handset from OP No.2 but he did not turn-up to receive the handset. This plea of the OPs No.2 & 3 is not tenable because the OPs No.2 & 3 could not produce any evidence to prove that they had repaired the mobile set of the complainant and made any call to the complainant to collect the mobile set nor the OPs No.2 & 3 have produced the mobile set in this Forum to prove that they had repaired the mobile set and it is now fully functional.
9. So, from the entire above discussion, it is clear that the OP No.2 has failed to repair the mobile set of the complainant and make it fully functional. They have also failed to return the mobile to the complainant. As such, we hold that the mobile set of the complainant is not repairable. Therefore, OPs No.2 & 3 are liable to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund its price.
10. Resultantly, we allow the complaint with cost and the OPs No.2 & 3 are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund the price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.10,800/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which OPs No.2 & 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ Rs.9/- % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. The OPs No.2 & 3 are also directed to pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost, under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh
29.09.2016 Member President
