DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 166 of 05.06.2008<br /> Decided on : 27-08-2008<br /> <br /> Pawan Kumar aged about 42 years S/o Kishan Lal R/o H. No. 630, Amrik Singh Road, Near Urang Cinema, Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.M/s. Nokia India Private Limited, Second Floor, Commercial Plaza, Radisson Hotel, NH-8, Mahipalpur New Delhi – 37 through its MD/Chairman<br /> 2.M/s. G S M. Communications, Shop No. 2, Improvement Trust Market, near Urang Cinema, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda through its Prop.<br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Sukhdarshan Sharma, Advocate as proxy for Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. V P S Khurmi, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 2. <br /> None for opposite party No. 1.<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> 1. Opposite party No. 1 is the manufacturer of various types of mobile hand sets. They are marketed by it through various dealers including opposite party No. 2. Complainant was to purchase mobile hand set. On the basis of the tall claims made by opposite party No. 2 on behalf of opposite party No. 1, mobile hand set Nokia-N-73-M bearing No. 353548020111242 was purchased by him through opposite party No. 2 vide Invoice No. 96 dated 6.5.08 for a consideration of Rs. 13,000/-. There was warranty of 12 months on the set. Performance of his mobile hand set remained good for one day only. Thereafter it started becoming dead and sometimes hanged. It was also creating problems in recharging. Complaint was made by him to opposite party No. 2 on 10.5.08. Set was given by him to the officials of opposite party No. 2 for replacement. Receipt was issued by them. Visits were paid to opposite party No. 2. He was told that it is the responsibility of the company to replace the set. He was further apprised that there is some manufacturing defect in the set. There was no proper response from opposite party No. 2. He alleges that opposite parties are deficient in rendering services. Defects in the mobile hand set have caused him embarrassment, botheration and mental agony in multifarious manners. He was unable to contact his colleagues and superiors. In these circumstances, this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred by him seeking directions from this Forum to the opposite parties to replace the mobile hand set; pay him Rs.5,000/- as compensation besides cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite party No. 1 was appearing through its counsel Sh. Sukhdev Mittal. Several opportunities were availed by it for filing reply of the complaint but the same was not filed. On 28.7.08 adjournment for filing the reply was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 200/- as cost. On the next date, neither cost was paid nor reply was filed. Ultimately defence of opposite party No. 1 has been struck of.<br /> 3. Opposite party No. 2 filed reply of the complaint admitting that mobile hand set was purchased by it from M/s. Midha Telecom, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda for a sum of Rs. 12,975/- vide bill No. 562 of 6.5.08 and the same was sold to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 13,000/-. With a meagre profit of Rs. 25/- no body takes the responsibility of repairing and replacing the set. Complaint was made to it by the complainant. Mobile hand set was handed over to it for repairs/replacement for which valid receipt was issued. If there is any manufacturing defect in the product, only manufacturer which is opposite party no. 1 is responsible and answerable. Set was shown to the Engineers of opposite party No. 1 who had orally disclosed that there is manufacturing defect in it and it cannot be repaired. It was further disclosed by them that it has to be sent to their office at Chandigarh and it is not sure that it would be in proper working condition or not even after its repairs at that end. It was further disclosed that it would take more than two months time in repairing the set. It denies the remaining averments in the complaint. <br /> 4. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his two affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-3), photocopy of retail invoice (Ex. C-2) and photocopy of receipt (Ex. C-4).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite party No. 2 affidavit of Sh. Rohit Garg (Ex. R-1), its sole proprietor has been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 7. Purchase of Nokia mobile hand set by the complainant from opposite party No. 2 is not in dispute. Even otherwise complainant has placed on record Ex. C-2 photocopy of the retail Invoice for this purpose. Complainant in his affidavits Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-3 reiterates his version in the complaint. On 10.5.08 hand set was received by opposite party No. 2 from the complainant for its replacement as it was not working properly. It was becoming dead and sometimes hanged. It was also creating problems in its charging. After receiving hand set, opposite party No. 2 had given the receipt copy of which is Ex. C-4. Hand set was not replaced by opposite party No. 2. Complainant was told that it is the responsibility of the Company to replace it. He was further apprised that there was manufacturing defect in the hand set. Opposite party No. 2 in the reply of the complaint admits all the material averments in the complaint. It has gone to the extent of saying that manufacturing defect was disclosed to it by the Engineers of opposite party No. 1 and that it was further made clear that set would be sent at Chandigarh office and even after sending it at that end, there is no surity that it would be working properly even after repairs. Opposite party No. 2 has submitted affidavit of Sh. Rohit Garg, its Sole Proprietor which is Ex. R-1 in which the entire version in the reply in the complaint stands reiterated. Opposite party No. 1 has not cared and dared to submit reply of the complaint and lead evidence although sufficient time and opportunities were provided to file the reply as well as to lead evidence. Hence evidence of the complainant which gets corroboration from the stance of opposite party No. 2 and the affidavit Ex. R-1 has gone unchallanged and unrebutted qua opposite party No. 1. In these circumstances, we have no other conclusion than the one that mobile hand set manufactured by opposite party No. 1 has manufacturing defect and it is irrepairable. Set has not been replaced. Accordingly, deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1 is proved as warranty in such case is of the Company as is clear from Ex. C-2. No deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2 is established.<br /> 8. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In view of our foregoing discussion, direction deserves to be given to opposite party No. 1 to replace the mobile hand set of the complainant with a new one of this make. Complainant has been deprived of the use of the mobile hand set for sufficient long time. Act and conduct of opposite party No. 1 must have caused him embarrassment, harassment and botheration since the set has manufacturing defect. For this, he deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs. 1,000/-. <br /> 9. In the premises written above, complainant is accepted against opposite party No. 1 with cost of Rs. 1000/-. It stands dismissed qua opposite party No. 2. Complainant and opposite party No. 1 are directed to do as under :<br /> (i) Complainant would deliver the mobile hand set purchased by him vide retail Invoice copy of which is Ex. C-2 to opposite party No. 1 within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> (ii) In case complainant delivers the mobile hand set purchased by him through Invoice, copy of which is Ex. C-2 as referred to above, opposite party No. 1 would replace it with a new one of this make without charging anything from the complainant within 10 days from the date of receipt of the old set from him.<br /> (iii) Opposite party No. 1 would pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act. <br /> Compliance with regard to payment of cost and compensation be made by opposite party No. 1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the amount of compensation under Section 14(1)(d) would carry interest @9% P.A. till payment. <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be also consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 27-08-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member<br /> 'iki'