Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/718

Dharam Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Chhatwal Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Heer Adv.

24 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                C.C.No.718 of 15.10.2014

                                                          Date of decision:24.02.2015 

Dharam Pal, Advocate s/o Sh.Ram Rakha r/o House No.20-A, Block-A, Gurdial Enclave, Ahuluwalia Colony, Jamalpur, Ludhiana.

                                                         ….Complainant.

                                       Versus       

1.M/s Chhatwal Mobiles, Main Road, Guru Arjun Dev Nagar, Near Samrala Chowk, Ludhiana through its Proprietor/Partner.

2.M/s Nokia Solutions and Network India Pvt.Ltd.,7^th Floor, Building 9-A, DLF Cyber City, Phase III, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Managing Director/Director.

3.M/s Nokia, Cheema Chowk, Near Zoom Hotel, Ludhiana through its Head/Incharge.

                                                …Opposite parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh. R.L.Ahuja, President.

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.

                   Ms.Babita, Member.

                  

Present:       Sh.S.S.Heer, Adv. for complainant.

Ops ex-parte.

                                                ORDER

R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT.  

 

1.                Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Sh.Dharam Pal, Advocate(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Complainant’) against M/s Chhatwal Mobiles, Main Road, Guru Arjun Dev Nagar, Near Samrala Chowk, Ludhiana through its Proprietor/Partner and others(hereinafter in short to be described ‘Ops’), directing them to either to replace the Nokia Mobile hand set 107 bearing IMEI NO.11:359993050360125, IME:12:359993050360133 which was purchased from Op1 vide cash memo/bill NO.10 dated 19.1.2014 for Rs.1600/- with new one or refund the amount of Rs.1600/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the date of its purchase i.e.19.1.2014 besides Rs.10,000/- as compensation and other benefits to the complainant.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant has purchased one Nokia Mobile hand set 107 bearing IMEI NO.11:359993050360125, IME:12:359993050360133 from Op1 vide cash memo/bill No.10 dated 19.1.2014 for Rs.1600/- which was manufactured by Op2. From the very beginning of the purchase of the said mobile hand set, the complainant noticed that the voice of the incoming and outgoing speaker was very low and the complainant and even the caller from the other side had to speak in loud voice to communicate. The complainant visited OP1 and apprised them about the problem faced by him and the OP1 instructed the complainant to visit the service centre of Nokia Company i.e.Op3. The complainant visited OP3 many times and lastly on 14.9.2014 but each and every time, the official of OP3 who were present there, made false pretexts and forced the complainant to leave their premises without resolving the problem. Rather, they were passing on the blame of solving this problem upon the OP1 and on the other hand, the Op1 was time and again instructing the complainant to visit service centre and in this process, the period of 8 months has been elapsed and till today, the problem has not been resolved. The complainant is facing harassment and humiliation due to this problem and the complainant being forced to purchase new mobile handset of Samsung Company. The complainant also served a legal notice upon the Ops dated 20.9.2014 but inspite of receipt of the same, neither the mobile set has been replaced with new one nor anything heard from them till today. Such act and conduct of OPs for supplying the defective mobile handset to the complainant is claimed to be deficiency in service on their part by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notices of the complaint, earlier, Sh.Rajinder Singh, Proprietor of OP1 was appeared, whereas, OP3 failed to appear despite service and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.12.2014 by this Forum, whereas notice of the complaint was sent to OP2 through registered on 01.12.2014 but the same was not received back and as such, after expiry of 30 days of period, Op1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dt.07.01.2015 of this Forum.  

4.                When the case was fixed for filing the written statement by OP1, neither OP1 nor its representative or proprietor had come present and as such, Op1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.01.2015 by this Forum.

5.                In order to prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his ex-parte evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.

7.                Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant has placed on record his affidavit in evidence as Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the allegations made by him in the complainant. Further, the complainant has proved on record the documents Ex.C1 copy of bill No.10 dated 19.1.2014 issued by the OP to the complainant qua the purchase of the mobile handset in question on payment of Rs.1600/- by the complainant, Ex.C2 copy of registered legal notice dated 20.09.2014 sent to the Ops by the complainant through his counsel and Ex.C3 to Ex.C5 copies of postal receipts.

8.                Since, the OPs did not appear and contest the present complaint, so evidence adduced by the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted.

9.               From the allegations of the complainant as well as the evidence on record, it is apparently clear that complainant had purchased the mobile handset in question i.e. Nokia Mobile hand set 107 bearing IMEI No.11:359993050360125, IMEI:12:359993050360133 from Op1 vide cash memo/bill No.10 dated 19.1.2014 Ex.C1 for an amount of Rs.1600/-. Further, it is proved fact on record that mobile in question was giving problem to the complainant as the voice of incoming and outgoing speaker was very low. Further, as per the allegations of the complainant that on the instruction of OP1, he had approached the service centre OP3 time and again with the request to resolve the problem in the mobile handset in question but OP3 failed to do so. Further, it is a proved fact on record that despite serving a legal notice dated 20.9.2014 by the complainant upon the Ops, vide which, the complainant had made request to the Ops to replace or repair the handset in question within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the said notice, failing which, he will be entertained to sue them in the competent court of law. However, despite service of the said notice, Ops failed to do anything qua the problem suffered by the complainant in his mobile in question. Since, it is proved on record that the OPs have failed to carry out the necessary repair in the mobile of the complainant despite his repeated requests and despite serving a legal notice and due to non working of the mobile of the complainant, the complainant has failed to use the mobile in question, which he had purchased for his personal use. Thus, Ops are proved to be deficient in rendering proper services.

10.              In view of the above discussion, by allowing this complaint, we direct OPs to carry out the necessary repair of the mobile of the complainant, which was purchased by the complainant vide invoice Ex.C1 and make it proper functional to the entire satisfaction of the complainant by replacing the defective parts, if any, required without any costs or in the alternative, to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same make and model without any costs or in case, the same is not available, to make refund of the entire amount of mobile in question to the complainant and further, for causing sufferance and harassment to the complainant, OPs are directed to pay compensation and litigation costs compositely assessed as Rs.700/-(Seven hundred only) to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 (Babita)                 (Sat Paul Garg        )                     (R.L.Ahuja)

 Member                     Member                                        President 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:24.02.2015

Gurpreet Sharma