DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 221 of 21-08-2008<br /> Decided on : 13-02-2009 <br /> <br /> Yadwinder Singh S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh, R/o C-563, Type III, Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant Colony, Bathinda. Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant <br /> Versus<br /> 1.Mobile Zone, Post Office Bazar, Opposite City Post Office, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Owner/Manager<br /> 2.Neuron Technologies, Hanuman Chowk, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Manager (Authorised Service Centre of Nokia at Bathinda)<br /> 3.Nokia India Private Limited, 2nd Floor, Commercial Plaza, Raddison, Hotel-1, NH-8, Mahipalpur, New Delhi 110037 through its Managing Director. <br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> Present : Sh. Rajneesh Rampal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh. Sukhraj Singh, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No.1. <br /> Sh. G S Bhasin, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 2<br /> Sh. Sukhdev Mittal, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 3.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> AMARJEET PAUL, MEMBER<br /> 1. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that on the assurance given by opposite party No.1, complainant purchased one Mobile set of Nokia model N70ME bearing ESN/IMEI No. 356294014386691 for a consideration of Rs. 11,900/- vide Bill No. 512 dated 22-08-07. Opposite party No. 1 is the authorised dealer of opposite party No. 3 at Bathinda. The mobile hand set of the complainant did not work properly since the date of its purchase as it started creating problem at the time of its start function. Hand set started switching of automatically. Complainant brought it to opposite party No. 1 which asked him to approach opposite party No. 2 which is the authorised service centre of opposite party No. 3. Accordingly, he came to opposite party No. 2 on 28.4.08 and made complaint vide job sheet No. 068-342506/ 08 04 28/57 and on 26.5.08 vide job sheet No. 06834506/08 05 26/36, but the defects were neither removed nor the set was replaced. Complainant through his friend namely Sandeep again approached opposite party No. 2 vide Job Sheet No. 068342506/08 08 09/51 dated 9.8.08 and the said opposite party assured him to receive the set in proper working condition on 10.8.08. But till the date of filing of this complaint, mobile set has not been returned by the opposite party No. 2. Twelve months warranty was provided for the set since the date of its purchase i.e. 22-08-2007. Due to this adamant attitude of the opposite parties, complainant has suffered mental and physical harassment. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties on account of supplying defective mobile set and thereafter not providing service in rectifying the defects. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to replace his mobile hand set or in the alternative to refund its price i.e. Rs. 11,900/- alongwith interest. Further direction be issued to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to him for mental tension and harassment suffered by him alongwith cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite party No. 1 filed reply taking legal objections that complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; complaint is not maintainable; it is bad for mis-joinder of parties and it is false and frivolous. On merits, it is admitted that it (opposite party No. 1) is the authorised dealer of opposite party No. 3. It is submitted that sealed packet of the set was opened in the presence of the complainant,who checked the same and admitting it to be right, purchased the same. After the purchase of the set, complainant never made any complaint. However, it is denied that any warranty was given by it. It is submitted that sealed pack was received by it from opposite party No. 3 and the same was sold to the complainant as was received. Opposite party No. 3 has its service centre at Bathinda i.e. opposite party No. 2. The complainant never approached to it regarding any complaint. Rest of the averments, made in the complaint, have been denied and prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same with costs.<br /> 3. Opposite party No. 2 filed separate reply taking legal objections that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and it is not maintainable. On merits it is stated that first time the hand set of the complainant was received on 28.4.08 with reported fault of Alert, Application alert, display, bad pixel, which was rectified free of cost and mobile hand set was returned to the complainant in working conditions. Again on 26.2.08, complainant's hand set was received with reported fault of power does not switch on and application alert, which was forwarded to Level III Service Centre at Chandigarh and the said defect was rectified and set was returned to the complainant in proper working condition. Again on 9.8.08, hand set of the complainant was received with reported fault of power switches off, keypad does not work. It was received from Chandigarh duly repaired on 13-08-08, but the complainant refused to accept the hand set and insisted for the new hand set. Ultimately, he left the hand set with it. <br /> 4. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his two affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2), affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Kumar (Ex. C-3), photocopy of Invoice dated 22.8.07 (Ex. C-4) and photocopy of Job Sheet dated 9.8.08 (Ex. C-5). <br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite party No. 1, affidavit of its Proprietor Sh. Anil Gupta (Ex. R-7), photocopy of Retail Invoice (Ex. R-8) and on behalf of opposite party No. 2, affidavit of its Proprietor Sh. Swadesh Goel (Ex. R-1), photocopies of Service job Sheets (Ex. R-2 to Ex. R-4) and photocopies of Delivery Challans (Ex. R-5 & Ex. R-6) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Besides this, we have gone through the record and perused the evidence of both the parties.<br /> 7. It is admitted fact that mobile hand set of Nokia N70NE was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 11,900/- vide Bill No. 512 dated 22.8.08. It is also not disputed that complainant delivered his mobile hand set to opposite party No. 2, which is still in possession of opposite party No. 2. Material question for determination is as to whether the mobile hand set purchased by the complainant vide Retail Invoice, copy of which is Ex. C-4 is repairable or not ?<br /> 1. Contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the set had become defective after 5-6 months from the date of its purchase. Thereafter it was taken to opposite party No. 1 which had sent it to opposite party No. 2. Set was returned after alleged repairs. It was found by the complainant that previous defects were still persisting. Set of the complainant was repaired by opposite party No. 2 on 28.4.08, 26.5.08 and 9.8.08. Thereafter set has not been returned after repairs to the complainant despite repeated visits. He alleges that despite spending an amount of 11,900/-, complainant is deprived of the use of his mobile hand set and has suffered financial, mental and physical loss at the hands of the opposite parties for which complainant is entitled to be compensated alongwith replacement of his mobile hand set. <br /> 2. Learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 argued that since the mobile hand set of the complainant became defective within the warranty period, the alleged defects were removed free of cost. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 argued that lastly complainant handed over his set to them for repairs and the set was received from Chandigarh after repairs on 13.8.08, but complainant refused to accept the same and insisted for new hand set.<br /> 3. We have considered the arguments of both the parties thoroughly.<br /> 4. We find force in complainant's version in his affidavits Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2. Mobile hand set was purchased on 22.8.08 as is evident from copy of Bill Ex. R-8. Opposite party No. 2 itself produced on record copies of Service Job Sheet Ex. R-2 to Ex. R-6. The perusal of Ex. R-2 reveals that on 28.4.08 mobile hand set of the complainant was handed over to opposite party No. 2 with reported faults as 'Line on display, loudspeaker auto on when call received'. Ex. R-3 reveals that on 26.5.08, the fault was 'Functions auto work during received call, keypad auto work during received call, call disconnect. As per Ex. R-4 on 9.8.08, complainant approached opposite party No. 2 with fault in his set as 'Keypad auto working, loudspeaker automatically activated, call drop'. The perusal of Ex. R-5 dated 06.06.08, reveals the fault 'LCD physically damaged, electrical failure' and as per Ex. R-6 dated 25.8.08, reported fault was 'LCD physically damaged, electrical failure'. Hence, as per Service Job Sheet from 28.4.08 to 25.8.08, complainant approached the opposite parties to get his set repaired five times within a short span of time of four months. The fault which was reported by him on 6.6.08, the same was again reported by him on 25.8.08. It shows that after repairs, fault again crept in the hand set. After spending an amount of Rs. 11,900/- for purchase of mobile hand set, he could not make full use of it and kept on visiting the opposite parties for its repairs as fault repeatedly crept in it after repair. As faults in the mobile hand set occurred again and again within its warranty period, hence, direction could not be given to the opposite parties for repair of the set. Complainant deserves replacement of his mobile hand set with a new one.<br /> 5. In view of our above discussions, we hereby accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties to give new mobile hand set of same model to the complainant or to refund the bill amount to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the facts and circumstances of this case, parties are left to bear their own costs. <br /> 6. The opposite parties are liable to comply this order jointly or severally.<br /> 7. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be also consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 13-02-2009 (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member