Haryana

Ambala

CC/9/2017

Devi Dayal Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Base 39 Mobile Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Mittal

13 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 09 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 09.01.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 13.02.2018

 

 

Devi Dayal Sharma, son of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Sales Manager, M/s Smrithi Hyndia, Tepla, District Ambala, resident of 117-B, Ganesh Vihar, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       M/s Base 39 Mobile Communication, Behind S.D.Girls Hostel, Ambala Cantt, through its Proprietor/Partner.

2.       M/s Lenova India Pvt. Ltd. Vatika Business Park, Ist Floor, Badshah Purr Road, Sector-49, Sohana Road, Gurgaon-122001.

3.       M/s Pristine Enamos, 175/7, First Floor, Bank Road, Ambala Cantt, through its Proprietor/Partner.

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.                           

 

Present:       Sh.Vishal Mittal, counsel for the complainant.

OPs ex-parte v.o.d. 28.02.2017.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a Mobile Phone Make Lenovo-A6000 of Black Colour  having IMEI No.868627024321730, 868627024321748 from the  OP No.1 vide Bill No.30455 dated 10.01.2016 for Rs. 8000/- with one year warranty. After 3 days of the purchase of the mobile phone by the complainant, the mobile phone of the complainant started giving  trouble because the mobile started hang if any application is opened and stacked by every menu whichever is opened by the complainant and the mobile phone also become very hot when the same was being used.  He immediately on 17.01.2016 contacted the OP No.1 and OP No.1 told the complainant to contact the OP No.3. Then, the complainant contacted the OP No.3 and told about the problems of the mobile phone. The technicians of the OP No.3 took the mobile phone of the complainant and told to  him that there is only a software problem in the mobile phone and told to the complainant to come on the next day. On the next day the complainant again visited the office of OP No.3 and the technicians of the OP No.3 handed over the mobile phone to the complainant and told that they have update the software and now the mobile phone will not hand up nor it will become hot. The complainant was shocked when the handset again started giving same problem and thereafter, he visited the office of OP No.3 several times but they failed to resolve the problem. Thereafter the complainant sent several mails and contacted the Tool free number of the OP No.2 but they also failed to provide any serve nor  the technician of the OP No.2. After that, on 25.02.2016 the complainant visited the office of OP No.3 and they issued a Job Card and told the complainant to come on the next day. ON the next day the complainant again visited the office of OP No.3 and they told that they have updated the software but while using any application and the said problem is still continuous in the mobile phone. The complainant is working as Sales Manager in a reputed company and due to non-working of the mobile phone the customer, friends could not contact the complainant and the complainant has suffered huge financial loss, harassment, great mental pain and agony. Hence, the preset complaint.

2.                Registered notices issued to Ops No. 1 to 3 but none have turned up on their behalf and they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.02.2017.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X with documents as annexure C-1 to C-6 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file. It is proved on the file that  complainant had purchased a mobile phone  Make Lenovo-A6000 of Black Colour  from OP No.1 vide Bill No.30455 dated 10.01.2016 with one year warranty (Annexure C-1) and after 3 days the handset started  hang if any application is opened and stacked by every menu whichever is opened by the complainant and it also become very hot when the same was being used.  Perusal of the job sheets i.e. Annexure C-2 shows that the mobile set having hanging problem, heating battery, no battery back-up etc as well as  Annexure C-4 it also reveals that the mobile set occurred problems due to  bad software and the version of complainant duly supported by his affidavit reveals that the defects of the mobile set could not be rectified by Ops within its warranty period and even it was returned back without getting the necessary work done. In this way, the mobile in question was went out of order during warranty period, therefore, it was the duty of the OPs to get the same defect free of costs but they did not rectify the problem of mobile in question. The complainant visited service centre/OP No.3 but the grievance has not been redressed by the OP No.3. Even then, the complainant sent the various E-mails as Annexure C-3 and Annexure-C-5 regarding problems occurred in the mobile in question but the OPs have failed to rectify the  problems developed in handset. In this way the complainant has been able to prove his case as the OPs have failed to provide service after selling the product in question which makes them deficient in service as per Consumer Protection Act. In the present case OPs No. 1 to 3 have also proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant.

5.                In view of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed against OPs No. 1 to 3 with costs and Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To replace the Mobile set in question with a new one of the same model. If the same model is not available then to refund the cost of mobile set to the tune of Rs.8,000/- as per Annexure C-1 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization subject  to return  old mobile set to  OPs.
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation. .

                    Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 13.02.2018                                       

 

 

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)     (ANAMIKA  GUPTA)           (D.N. ARORA)

            Member                               Member                                 President