Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/501/2019

Ajay Bansal S/o Sat Parkash Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mobile Point - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev goel

29 Apr 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    501 of 2019.

                                                                   Date of institution:         20.11.2019.

                                                                   Date of decision: 29.04.2022

 

Ajay Bansal s/o Shri Sat Parkash Bansal, r/o H.No.1560, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. Mobile Point, Aggarsain Chowk, Kurukshetra, through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.
2. Nokia India, S.P. Info City, Industrial Plot No.243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1, Dundahera, Gurugram (Gurgaon), Haryana-122016, through its Managing Director.
3. Nokia Care, Kurukshetra Road, Pipli, through its Authorized Signatory.

 

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate for the complainant.               

                   Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 ex-parte, vide order dated 03.02.2020.

                   Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “Act”).

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile phone set make Nokia 6.1 plus, bearing IMEI No.353385097679458 from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.15500/- vide invoice No.5704 dated 18.03.2019. The said mobile phone was manufactured by OP No.2 and OP No.3 was authorized service centre of OP No.2. The mobile phone was having manufacturing defect from the very beginning, consequently, after sometime of its purchase, its display was not working properly and then become invisible. The complainant approached to OP No.1 and made complaint in this regard on 03.07.2019, who asked to approach OP No.3 in this regard. He approached to OP No.3 and after checking the mobile phone, its official refused to rectify the problem on the false pretext that the mobile phone had been fallen, whereas, there was no physical loss to it. The complainant requested various times to the OPs either to rectify the problem of phone or replace the same with new one, but they failed to redress his grievance, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs, causing him mental agony, harassment and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.                On receipt of complaint, its notices were ordered to be issued against all the OPs.

4.                On receipt of notices of complaint, OPs No.1 & 3 failed to appear before this Commission, either, in person or through any advocate on 03.02.2020 and were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte, on that date, by this Commission.

5.                The OP No.2 appeared and filed its written statement stating therein that complainant had mentioned in the complaint that the handset was submitted for repair, whereas, the complainant did not file any job sheet with the present complaint. When the handset was inspected at the ASC, they found that the display was not functioning as the handset was brought with ASC in damage condition, wherein, it was observed that there was dent on the handset and also it did not cover under the warranty. The complainant was informed that the repair of the handset was done out of warrant and he had to give the repair charges, but the complainant was insisting on the replacement of the handset under warranty clause. No manufacturing defect was found in the mobile, as it had been used by the complainant for a period of about five months without any defect/fault from the date of its purchase and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it with heavy costs.  

6.                The complainant, in support of his complaint tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with document Ex.C-1 and closed his evidence.

7.                On the other hand, the OP No.2, in support of its case, tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and closed its evidence.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file as well carefully.

9.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased a mobile phone set make Nokia, from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.15500/- on 18.03.2019. The mobile phone was having manufacturing defect from the very beginning, consequently, after sometime of its purchase, its display was not working properly and then become invisible. Initially, the complainant approached to OP No.1 in this regard on 03.07.2019 and thereafter, approached to OP No.3 and after checking the mobile phone, its official refused to rectify the problem on the false pretext that the mobile phone had been fallen, whereas, there was no physical loss to it. The complainant requested various times to the OPs either to rectify the problem of phone or replace the same with new one, but they failed to redress his grievance.

10.              Learned counsel for OP No.2 argued that the complainant did not file any job sheet with the present complaint. When the handset was inspected at the ASC, they found that the display was not functioning as the handset was brought with ASC in damage condition, wherein, it was observed that there was dent on the handset and also it did not cover under the warranty. The complainant was informed that the repair of the handset was done out of warrant and he had to give the repair charges, but the complainant was insisting on the replacement of the handset under warranty clause. He further argued that no manufacturing defect was found in the mobile, as it had been used by the complainant for a period of about five months without any defect/fault from the date of its purchase and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it with heavy costs. 

11.              There is no dispute that the complainant purchased the mobile in question, from OP No.1, for a sum of Rs.15,500/-, vide Tax Invoice Ex.C-1 with warranty of one year. There is also no dispute that the mobile phone was manufactured by OP No.2 and OP No.3 was authorized service centre of OP No.2.  

12.              As per complainant, the mobile phone was having manufacturing defect from the very beginning, because, after sometime of its purchase, its display was not working properly and then become invisible and in this regard, on 03.07.2019, he approached to OP No.3, who refused to rectify its defect, on the flimsy ground that the mobile phone had been fallen, due to which, it becomes warranty void and demanded repair charges. On the other hand, the OP No.2 contended that after inspecting the handset at the ASC, it was found that its display was not functioning, as the handset was brought with ASC in damaged condition and there was dent on it and also it did not cover under the warranty.

13.              To support his contentions, the complainant produced repair order No.1562657376776, Jobsheet No.418433527/190703/003 dated 03.07.2019 on the case file, vide which, he lodged his complaint regarding defect in the mobile phone with the OPs, whereas, on the other hand, the OPs have failed to produce any documentary evidence on the record to prove their contentions, except, affidavit of one Varun Menon as Ex.RW2/A, wherein, contents, mentioned in the written statement, has been reiterated to. The OPs contended that on checking, the mobile phone was found physically damaged and as such, became warranty void, but to prove the same, the OPs failed to produce any report or affidavit of that engineer, who checked the mobile phone, on the case file. The OPs also failed to prove on the file that the defects of the mobile phone were removed by them.

14.              In the complaint, complainant alleged that the mobile phone was having manufacturing defect in it, but this allegation of complainant, has no force, because, the complainant purchased the mobile phone on 18.03.2019 and he reported the issue in it, for the first time on 03.07.2019, and reporting of defect in the mobile phone, by the complainant, after about 3½ months, from the date of its purchase, in itself, is a proof that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile in question. Had it been so, then there was no issue of working of mobile phone, for the period of more than three months.

15.              In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the mobile phone of the complainant became defective, during warranty period, but the OPs No.1 & 2 failed to repair/replace the same. Hence, the OPs No.1 & 2 are deficient while rendering the services to the complainant. The complainant had used the mobile set for 3½ months, before it become defective, so, keeping in view the above facts & circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of justice will be met, if the cost of mobile phone be ordered to be refunded to the complainant, after making 25% depreciation in it. Since there are no specific allegations have been leveled against the OP No.3, by the complainant, nor it has been proved, therefore, complaint, filed against OP No.3, is liable to be dismissed.

16.              In view of our above discussion, we partly accept the present complaint, against OPs No.1 & 2, and dismiss the same against OP No.3 and direct the OPs No.1 & 2 severally and jointly pay Rs.11,625/-, cost of the mobile phone, after deducting 25% depreciation i.e. Rs.15,500/- less Rs.3875/- = Rs.11625/-, subject to deposit of mobile phone & its accessories, with the service-centre of OP No.2 i.e. OP No.3, by the complainant. The OPs No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to an act of deficiency in service, on the part of the OP No.1 & 2, alongwith Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. The OPs No.1 & 2 are further directed to make the compliance of this order, within the period of 45 days, from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, Award amount of Rs.11,625/- shall carry interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order till its actual realization, and in that eventuality, complainant shall also be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act, against the OPs No.1 & 2. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:29.04.2022.

    

 

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    (Member).                                     DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.