Haryana

Panchkula

CC/65/2015

SUMNENDER SINGH BADHRANN - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S DISHU MOBILES - Opp.Party(s)

SUMIENDER

03 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	65 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	07.04.2015
Date of Decision	:	03.09.2015

                                                                                          

Sumnender Singh Badhran s/o Late Sh.Balbir Singh, R/o House No.1294, Sector-26, Panchkula (Hr.).

                                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Dishu Mobiles, SCO No.45, Canan Palaza, Shop No.207, Sector-11, Panchkula through its proprietor.

2.       Shivam Communication (Panchkula), SCO No.38, F.F., Sector-11, Panchkula (HR.) through its Manager.

3.       P.P. Telecell Marketing Pvt. Ltd., M-395, Basement, Guru Hari Krishan Nagar, Bachim Vihar, Opp. Gate No.5, GH-13, New Delhi-110087 through its Care Manager.

                                                                                 …. Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

                            

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

Mr.Bhanwar Lal, Prop. Op No.1 in person.

Ops No.2 and 3 already ex-parte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. In brief, the complainant-Sumnender Singh Badhran had purchased a GIONEE mobile handset Model P4 (GIONEE), white vide IMEI No.3864465022381016 from the Op No.1 vide bill No.5762 dated 20.07.2014 (Annexure C-1) for an amount of Rs.8,700/- with a warranty of one year. At the time of purchase, the Op No.1 assured the complainant that the set was all right and it would work effectively. After the purchase of one month, the mobile started giving problem in touch. On 20.08.2014, the complainant approached the OP No.2-authorised service center for repair and the concerned person, after taking the mobile, stated that the problem is a serious one and it would take few days for repair. After few days i.e. in the month of August, 2014, the complainant approached the OP No.2 and took his repaired mobile from the OP No.2 but the mobile was not fully repaired by the Op No.2. When again the complainant approached the Op No.2, the concerned person told him that it was not a major fault and assured that it would not appear after few days as it would take some time to come in normal operation because new software was installed in the mobile phone. On 03.03.2015, the phone became totally dead. The complainant is an Advocate by profession and phone is very much necessary for his profession at work for communication with the clients and other persons. Due to the act of the opposite parties, the complainant has to suffer great loss and the same is deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Op No.1 has appeared before this Forum and filed written statement. It is submitted that the complainant purchased the mobile phone from the Op No.1. It is submitted that neither the Op No.1 nor his official allured the complainant to purchase the mobile. It is submitted that it was the complainant who approached the Op No.1 alongwith a cutting of newspaper and as per the demand of the complainant, the Op No.1 sold the mobile to the complainant. It is submitted that the mobile handset carried a warranty of one year and the warranty belonged to the manufacturer and not to the seller. It is submitted that the problem in the phone might have occurred due to mishandling or over charging of the mobile by the complainant. It is submitted that the OP No.1 performed his duty on each and every time and advised to get the phone repaired from the Op No.2.  It is submitted that the Op No.1 is only the seller of the product and it was the complainant who purchased the mobile phone after fully satisfying himself. It is submitted that the Op No.1 always gave the addresses of Ops No.2 and 3 to the complainant as the warranty belongs to them. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Notice was issued to the OP No.2 through registered post and the same has not been received served or unserved. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.05.2015.
4. Notice was issued to the OP No.3 through registered post and the same has not been received served or unserved. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.06.2015.
5. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Op No.1 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the complainant and Op No.1 appearing in persons and have also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.
7. It is evident from the Annexure C-1 that the complainant has purchased a GIONEE mobile handset Model P4 (GIONEE) white vide IMEI No.3864465022381016 from the OP No.1 vide bill No.5762 dated 20.07.2014 for an amount of Rs.8,700/- with a warranty of one year. After the purchase of one month, the mobile started giving problem in touch and the complainant approached the OP No.2 for repair who stated that it would take few days for repair. In the month of August, 2014, the complainant approached the Op No.2 and took the delivery of the mobile handset but it was not fully repaired. The complainant again approached the Op No.2 who stated that it was not a major fault and assured that it would not appear after few days as it would take few time to come in normal operation but on 03.03.2015, the mobile handset became totally dead.
8. On the other hand, the Op No.1 in his written statement admitted the purchase of the mobile handset and also one year warranty which belonged to the manufacturer not the seller. It is further submitted that the complainant approached the OP No.1 who advised him to get the phone repaired from the Op No.2 i.e. authorized service center as the Op No.1 is only the seller of the product.
9. We feel that it is only OP No.2 who could clarify the fact regarding the repair and its returning to the complainant after proper repairs. However, OP No.2 has not come forward to contest the case and clarify the situation or to corroborate the defence of the OP No.1, rather it preferred to proceed against ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against it. The evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted. As such, the same is accepted as correct and the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties is proved. 
10. In view of the abovesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint of the complainant is hereby allowed and the Ops are directed as under:-

(i)      To repair the mobile phone to the entire satisfaction of the complainant or to refund the amount of Rs.8700/- alongwith 9% per annum from the date of purchase till realization.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for compensation as mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

 

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

03.09.2015         S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR      DHARAM PAL

                           MEMBER                    MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                 

                                                                   DHARAM PAL

                                                                    PRESIDENT