Punjab

Sangrur

CC/283/2016

Bhupinder Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

MPS Telecom Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajnish Verma

05 Sep 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no.283                                                                                          

                                                                 Instituted on:  09.02.2016                                                                                  

                                                                  Decided on:    05.09.2016

 

Bhupinder Verma son of Shri Narinder Pal resident of H.No.581, Mubark Mehal Colony, Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant

       

                              Versus

 

1. MPS Telecom Private Limited, D-55, First & Second Floor, Okhla Industrial Aral, Phase-1, New Delhi-110020 ( Importer).
2. The Proprietor  of National Time Shop, Court Road, Opposite Old Khadi Bhandar, Sangrur.
3. UNITECH # -a/6383, Near Street Bangi House, Mehna Marg, Old Bus Stand, G.T. Road, Bathinda.   

      ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri Rajnish Verma,  Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1&3      :     Exparte                         

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.2           :     Shri Vinay Jindal, Advocate

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member       

 

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Bhupinder Verma, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a new touch mobile hand set HTC desire  526 G+ ( G Plus)  from OP No.2 for Rs.11100/- vide bill number 12665 dated 08.03.2015 under one year warranty. From the very beginning, said mobile set started giving problems of camera, Video, Flash light and receiver volume  for which the complainant approached the OP No.2 who advised to approach the OP No.3. Then the complainant approached OP No.3  who kept the mobile phone  and  assured the complainant  to repair the mobile set within 15 days but despite 3-4 visits the OP No.3 did not hand over the mobile set to the complainant and ultimately on 10.06.2015  the same was handed over to the complainant but the mobile set again started giving new problems of  becoming very hot, hanging during the talks, speaker and voice problems but the problems  had not been rectified and ultimately the OP No.3 told the complainant that  there is manufacturing defect in the mobile. As the problem occurred during the warranty period, the complainant requested the OP no.2 to replace the same with new one but OP no.2 refused to do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and negligence on the  part of all OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to return the price of the mobile set in question i.e. Rs.11100/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OPs no.1&3 did not appear and as such OPs no. 1&3 were proceeded exparte on 01.04.2016. The OP no.2 did not file any reply as such opportunity to file the reply by OP No.2 was closed by order of the Forum.

3.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and closed evidence. On the other hand, no evidence has been produced by the OP No.2.

4.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that the complainant had purchased  a mobile phone of HTC-Desire 526 G+ ( Dual SIM) from OP No.2 on 08.03.2015 for an amount of Rs.11,100/- under warranty of one year which is evident from  retail invoice number 12665 dated 08.03.2015 which is Ex.C-2 on record. The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that from the very beginning of purchase, the mobile phone started giving problems for which the complainant approached the OPs but the problems could not be solved.  To prove her version, the complainant has produced on record copy of retail invoice Ex.C-2 and copy of job sheet No. ATQ004-0002565 dated 05.04.2015 Ex.C-3. The complainant has also produced report of an expert namely Damanjit Singh  proprietor of Singh Connectivity  Ex.C-9 along with his affidavit Ex.C-11  wherein  Mr. Damanjit Singh has opined that  after  checking the said mobile set of the complainant,  there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set of the complainant due to which it is creating problem.

5.             The OPs no. 1 and 3 did not appear to contest the case of the complainant rather they chosen to remain exparte.  Moreover, the OP No.2, from whom the mobile set in dispute was purchased by the complainant did not file any reply or documentary evidence to contest the case of the complainant.  In our opinion, it is also duty of the OP no.1 from whom the set in dispute was purchased by the complainant to take  appropriate steps to redress the grievance of the complainant but the OP no.2 has also totally failed to do so. As such, the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted.  

6.             For the reasons recorded above, we find  that the mobile set  in question  developed  defects within the warranty period which could not be removed by the OPs meaning thereby there is manufacturing defect in it.  In this manner,  the OPs are deficient in service and as such we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs who are jointly and severally liable  to replace the mobile phone in dispute with new one of the same model or in the alternative to refund an amount                                                                                                                                                                              Rs.11100/- which is price amount of the mobile set in dispute  to the complainant subject to return of the defective mobile set in question along with all accessories of it. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant  a consolidated  amount  of Rs.1500/- on account of  mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.  

                Announced

                September 5, 2016

 

 

 

  ( Sarita Garg)          (K.C.Sharma)    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                        Member              Member                            President

 

 

 

 

 

BBS/-