DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 152 of 10-07-2009<br /> Decided on : 16-11-2009 <br /> <br /> Makhan Singh S/o Sh. Bant Singh, R /o H. No. 20361-C, Jujhar Singh Nagar, Street No. 1/5-A, Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Mobile Shoppee, Shop No. 3, The Mall, Mobile Market, Near Railway Station, Bathinda.<br /> 2.Hind Tele-communication, authorised service centre of Nokia Care Centre, Near Krishna Continental Bibiwala Road, Bathinda.<br /> 3.Nokia India Private Limited, 4 F, Tower A &B Cybergreen DLF Cyber City, Sector 25-A, Gurgaon 122002 (Haryana) through its Care Manager.<br /> <br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. George, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. N. M. Aggarwal, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party No. 2<br /> Sh. Sukhdev Mittal, counsel for opposite party No. 3. <br /> Sh. Krishan Kumar, representative of <br /> opposite party No. 1. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') with the allegations against the opposite parties that he purchased Nokia N-73 IMEI-353548024378284 from opposite party No. 1 vide Invoice No. 635 dated 12-07-2008 for a sum of Rs. 12,980/-. In the month of May, 2009, the said mobile hand set started giving trouble to him when he had gone to Chandigarh in connection with some personal work. He and his son contacted authorised service centre of opposite party No. 3 at Chandigarh and lodged complaint. Since the said service centre found the mobile hand set not working properly, it was retained by them for repair and also assured the complainant and his son, that it will be replaced in case some manufacturing defect is found in it. On 15-06-09 the set was returned to the complainant and after 3-4 days, it again started giving trouble. He contacted opposite party No. 2 i.e. Nokia Care Centre at Bathinda and handed over the set to it for repair on 17-06-09. On 29-06-2009, opposite party No. 2 returned the set to him and assured that mobile hand set has been repaired and set right and there will be no problem in future. Since the set was not working properly, he again contacted opposite party No. 2 on 02-07-09 and 03-07-09 and ultimately he handed over the hand set again to opposite party No. 2 on 03-07-09 for which job sheet was prepared wherein target delivery was mentioned as 03-07-2009. He asserts that till today neither his mobile hand set duly repaired nor new hand set has been delivered to him. He has been contacting opposite party No. 2 frequently and requesting it to give replacement of the mobile hand set as he is in dire need of the same because his official work is suffering without the same, but to no effect. Due to the adamant act of the opposite parties, apart from monetary loss of the price of the hand set, he has suffered mental tension, agony, harassment and inconvenience. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to pay him sum of Rs. 12,980/- being the price of the hand set and also to pay him Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and any other additional and/or alternative relief.<br /> 2. The opposite party No. 2 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint is false and baseless; complainant has no locus standi or cause of action; he is guilty of suppressing true facts and he is estopped from filing the present complaint. On merits, it has been submitted that there was no problem/defect in the set and the same was working well when the complainant first time approached to answering opposite party. The complainant pressurize the answering opposite party to deposit the same with the intention to file a false complaint against it. It has been pleaded that it is still ready to replace the handset in question with a new one for the entire satisfaction of the complainant. All other remaining averments made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the same.<br /> 3. The opposite party No. 1 did not file any written reply and made a statement that the reply filed by opposite party No. 2 be read as his reply also. <br /> 4. Despite providing various opportunities, opposite party No. 3 did not file any reply and accordingly its defence was struck of.<br /> 5. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, the complainant has produced in evidence bill dated 12-07-08 Ex. C-1, photocopies of job sheets Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3, photocopy of letter dated 03-07-09 Ex. C-4 and affidavit of complainant Ex. C-5.<br /> 6. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Amit Setia Ex. R-1.<br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record of the case.<br /> 8. During the course of arguments, Sh. Sukhdev Mittal, the learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 made a statement before this Forum that he has been instructed by opposite party No. 3 that the matter may be settled amicably and complainant may be provided with a new mobile hand Set N-73 with a fresh warranty for the full period or in the alternative, the complainant may be reimbursed the amount which he has spent for the purchase of mobile hand set i.e. Rs. 12,980/-.<br /> 9. We have taken into consideration offer made by Sh. Sukhdev Mittal, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party No. 3. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the complainant has been deprived of the use of the hand set from 17-06-2009 till date as it was deposited by the complainant with opposite party No. 2 who is admittedly service centre of opposite party No. 3 and till date, the hand set has not been returned to the complainant after due repairs, we therefore accept the complaint against opposite party No. 3 and direct opposite party No. 3 to pay the complainant cost of the mobile hand set N-73 i.e. Rs. 12,980/- with interest @9% P.A. w.e.f. 17-06-2009 till the date of payment, alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- for harassment, mental tension and inconvenience suffered by him besides litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 2,000/-.<br /> 10. The complaint qua opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is dismissed. <br /> 11. The opposite party No. 3 is directed to comply this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be indexed and consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 16-11-2009 <br /> (George)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) Member <br />