DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 192 of 12-08-2009<br /> Decided on : 15-12-2009 <br /> <br /> Sukhdev Bansal, S/o Sh. Dharam Pal Bansal, R/o H. No. 5713, Mohalla Talianwala, Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.M/s. Shiv Bhola Telecom Street No. 6, Nai Basti, Opp. Imperial Motors, Bathina, through its Prop./Partner.<br /> 2.Hindtel Communications, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, through its Prop./Partner/Manager/Authorised Representative.<br /> 3.Nokia India Limited, Raddison Hotel, Commercial Plaza, N.H. Mahipalpur, New Delhi.<br /> <br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikaramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. J.S. Kohli, Advocate, counsel for the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. R D Goyal, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 1.<br /> Opposite party No. 2 exparte.<br /> Sh. Sukhdev Mittal,Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 3. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKARAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one mobile hand set make Nokia 1650-B, IMEI No. 359307023603752 from opposite party No. 1 vide bill No. 272 dated 4-2-209 for a sum of Rs. 1800/-. Soon after it's purchase, it started giving trouble to him as there was defect in its Transceiver and its power was not being switched on. He approached opposite party No. 1 on 18-07-09 who asked him to contact opposite party No. 2 i.e. Autorised Service Centre of manufacturer (opposite party No. 3). The complainant approached opposite party No. 2 on the same day and opposite party No. 2 after checking the mobile hand set, retained the same vide Job Sheet No. 176433527/090718/57 dated 18-07-09 and asked him to collect it on 22-07-09. He visited opposite party No. 2 on 22-07-09 and collected his mobile hand set. But on 23.7.09, it again started giving the same problem. He again deposited the set with opposite party No. 2 and he was asked to collect it on 30-07-09. When he collected his mobile hand set on 30-07-09, he was assured that the set stood fully repaired. Since his set was still giving trouble, he again approached opposite party No. 2 and he was told that the set in question was not repairable as it has some manufacturing defect. He asserts that he made repeated requests to the opposite parties with the request that since his mobile hand set is within guarantee period, it be replaced but to no effect and his set is still lying with opposite party No. 2. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to replace his mobile hand set with a new one and to pay to him Rs. 20,000/- as damages on account of mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 300/-.<br /> 2. The opposite party No. 1 filed reply taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable and complainant used the hand set roughly and against instructions provided by Nokia company, so complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> On merits, it has been admitted that complainant purchased the mobile hand set in question from it, but, it has been denied that he ever approached it for any defect in the mobile hand set. All other remaining averments made in the complaint have been denied.<br /> 3. Registered notice of the complaint was served dasti to opposite party No. 2, but despite receiving notice, none appeared on its behalf and accordingly, it was proceeded against exparte. <br /> 4. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 stated at Bar that he made open offer to the complainant for refund of the cost of the hand set which was not accepted by him and accordingly learned counsel pleaded that opposite party No. 3 does not want to file any written version and his said offer may be treated as reply. <br /> 5. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, photocopy of bill Ex. C-2 and photocopy of Job Sheets Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4.<br /> 6. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, opposite party No. 1 produced in evidence affidavit of Sh. Akash Dhali, Proprietor Ex. R-1 and photocopy of limited warranty Ex. R-2.<br /> 7. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and opposite parties No. 1 & 3 and have gone through the record of the case.<br /> 8. Opposite party No. 1 has admitted the sale of Nokia hand set to the complainant vide bill dated 4th Feburary, 2009. It was not the case of the complainant that he ever handed over the hand set to opposite party No. 1 for repair. Therefore, the opposite party No. 1 has rightly pleaded in its written reply that he was never handed over the Nokia hand set for repair, but this pleading of opposite party No. 1 is of no consequence at all. <br /> Opposite party No. 1 has contended that complainant has not brought on record any expert report regarding defect in the hand set and therefore, he has not been able to prove his case. In support of his contention, he has also relied on Sandeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd., and Anr. Vs. Mercedes Benz India Ltd., and Others 2009(3) CPC 289. The principle laid down in this authority is not applicable to the case in hand because in the instant case, the allegations of the complainant have been virtually admitted by the opposite parties either by suffering exparte or by inference and also by evidence on record. <br /> 9. In view of the finding recorded above, the complainant is entitled to recover the cost of the hand set in question i.e. Rs. 1800/-. The complainant had purchased the hand set for his convenience, but it proved to be a source of his headache and harassment. Therefore, he is entitled for compensation for mental tension to the tune of Rs. 1,000/-. The complainant has engaged lawyer for pursuing his case, therefore the costs are also included in the said amount. Hence, the complaint is accepted in favour of the complainant and against opposite parties No. 1 & 3 as contested and opposite party No. 2 as exparte. The opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant jointly or severally a sum of Rs. 1800/- as costs of the hand set and Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and the file be indexed and consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 15-12-2009 <br /> (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) Member <br />