Haryana

Jind

CC/176/2015

Rakesh Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh Manoj Sharma

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM, JIND. 
                                                 Complaint Case No. 176 of 2015
                                                   Date of Institution:    23.11.2015
                                                    Date of Decision   :    30.11.2016

Rakesh Verma son of Sh. Ramesh Verma r/o Ward No.3 Uchana Kalan (Old Bus Stand Uchana) Tehsil Narwana Distt. Jind. 

                                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
M/s Neha Mobile, Railway Road, Uchana Mandi Tehsil Narwana Distt. Jind through its Proprietor.
M/s Dev Mobiles, Shop No.43, opposite Reliance Web World,Gohana Road, Jind (Authorized Service Centre of Gionee Mobile at Jind) through its Proprietor.
RV Solution Pvt. Ltd. 11/373, Ground Floor Mahipalpur Mega Mart & KPS School, Mahipalpur Delhi-110037 through its Chairman/Managing Director.
Gionee Head Quarter (Head Office) India Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd. F-2, Block No. B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-OP Industrial Estates, Mathura Road, New Delhi through its M.D/Authorized person. 

                                                               …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of the
                               Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM: SH.A.K. SARDANA PRESIDENT.
      SMT. BIMLA SHEOKAND, MEMBER.
              SH. M.K. KHURANA, MEMBER.    

Present:  Sh. Manoj Sharma  Adv. counsel for complainant.
              Sh. Satish Kumar, Proprietor  OP No.1.
              OPs No. 2 to 4 ex-parte. 
         
ORDER:

              Brief facts of the  present complaint are that complainant is running a shop near old Bus Stand under the name & style of M/s Verma Spare Parts Uchana Distt. Jind and he   purchased  one Gionee Elife E-7 & 32 GB black mobile set bearing IMEI No.862583026200503 in a sum of Rs. 28,000/-  from OP No.1 vide bill No. 426 dated 4.7.2014 which was having one year warranty from the date of its purchase.  After its purchase, while using the above said mobile set,  complainant  noticed the problem of  Bluetooth data transmit  in it and thus he reported  the said problem to OP No.1 at which OP No.1 asked the complainant to get the mobile checked at OP No.2 i.e. authorized service centre of OP company. So, the  complainant visited the shop of OP No.2 who checked the mobile and  kept the  same  with him by issuing job sheet No. GC15600051893 dated 11.6.2015 to the complainant.  OP No.2 told the  complainant that there is manufacturing defect and he will sent the mobile set to OP No.3  for removing the defect. Thereafter OP No.2 neither returned the mobile set in question after rectifying the defects nor replaced the same with new one and the  mobile set is still lying with the OPs. Thereafter the complainant  visited many times to receive back his mobile  but  of no use. At last, the complainant served a legal notice dated 2.7.2015 upon the OPs but all in vain. As such, the complainant has submitted that the OPs are admittedly deficient in providing proper services to him and  prayed that the complaint be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the price of mobile i.e. Rs.28,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.,  and to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain & harassment  to the complainant. 
2.    Upon notice,   Sh. Satish Kumar Proprietor OP No.1 appeared in person  whereas none appeared on behalf of OPs No. 2 to 4 despite service through registered post. As such, OPs No. 2 to 4 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.6.2016. OP No.1 tendered reply to the complaint raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form and complainant has no cause of action & locus-standi to file the present complaint against the answering OP. On merits, it has been urged that  after purchasing the above said mobile, the complainant never made any complaint to the answering OP regarding any defect in the mobile in question. The answering OP is only dealer and he is not responsible for removing the defect in the mobile set and OPs No. 2 to 4 are responsible for removing the defect of the mobile in question. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. In the end, he  has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 
3.    To prove his contention,  counsel for  complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure C-1 along with documents as  Annexures C-2 to  C-8 in  his evidence and closed the same whereas   OP No.1 has produced his own affidavit as Annexure R1/X and closed his evidence. 
4.    We have heard the Ld. Counsel  for complainant and OP No.1 in person and perused the record placed on file. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that complainant purchased a mobile set of Gionee Elife-7  on 4.7.2014 from OP No.1 & one year warranty was provided to him for the said mobile set. The main grievance of the complainant is that after some time of purchase, said mobile set started giving Bluetooth data transmit problems. The complainant contacted OP No.2 which is service centre of the OP company for repair and rectification of the defects in the set  where the officials retained the mobile set in question vide job sheet Annexure C-5. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the said mobile was neither repaired nor returned back to the complainant despite various visits and the same is still lying in the custody of OPs No. 2&3 which is admittedly a deficiency in service on the part of OPs. He further argued that OPs be directed to  refund  the cost of mobile set alongwith compensation as prayed for in the complaint. Besides it,  to strengthen his case, the Ld. Counsel of the complainant relied upon the case law reported in 2008 (1) CLT page 15 rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Soni Erricson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal & 2007 (1) CLT page 614 passed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, in case titled as  Nokia Vs. Ankush Kapoor and others wherein it is held that “inspite of repair of mobile set, it did not work and thus observed that the handset was having inherent defects and refund of cost of mobile was ordered.”  Counsel for complainant further convinced that the facts of the present complaint are similar to the above mentioned case law as the mobile set in question could not be repaired by OPs No. 2 & 3  inspite of retaining the same meaning thereby the same is not repairable. On the other hand,  OP No.1 argued that the answering  OP is only a seller and he sold the mobile in question in a packed condition and the liability, if any,  lies upon the manufacturer i.e.  OPs No. 3 &4 & its service centre i.e. OP No.2. 
5.    After hearing   the rival contention of the parties and going through the record, it is clear from the document Annexure C-4 that mobile set in question of OP company was purchased by complainant from OP No.1 on 4.7.2014. Further, it is also not in dispute that the mobile set in question became defective during the warranty period and deposited with OP No.2 i.e. service centre of OP company for rectification of defects  as clear from document Annexure C-5 i.e. job sheet dated 11.6.2015. Further, OPs No. 2 to 4 did not bother to appear & contest the present complaint despite service and in these circumstances, we have no option  except to believe the version putforth by the complainant that OP No.2 did not returned back the mobile set in question till date. As such, we hold that the OPs have neither rectified the defective mobile set in question despite warranty  nor returned back the same to the complainant  till date which is admittedly a deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 to 4. Hence, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs No. 2 to 4 to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-
(i)    to return 50% cost of  the mobile i.e. Rs.14,000/- (1/2 of Rs.28,000/-)  to the complainant  after deducting 50% cost of mobile on account of depreciation since the complainant utilized the mobile in dispute from 4.7.2014 to 11.6.2015 i.e. the date of issue of job sheet by OP No.2, service centre of the company.
(ii)    to pay a sum of  Rs.2500/- as compensation on account of 
          harassment, mental pain & agony etc.
(iii)    also to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/-as cost of litigation. 
               Let the aforesaid order/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is decided in above terms. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 
Announced:

                                                                                                                  PRESIDENT                                                                                                                                                                                             District Consumer Disputes
                                                                                                             Redressal Forum, Jind. 

                                                                                                                            Member

                                                                                                                              Member