DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.12 of 20.09.2007<br /> Decided on: 12.11.2007<br /> <br /> Sh.Manjit Singh aged about 22 years R/o S.Hakam Singh resident of VPO Ghanaur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.<br /> <br /> -----------Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. M/s Sood Communication, Mobile Repair & Computer Work, Near<br /> Police Station Ghanaur through its Proprietor, District Patiala.<br /> 2. Incharge, Nokia Care Centre, Near Jivan Plaza, 22 No.Phatak, Patiala.<br /> <br /> ----------Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the<br /> Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh.Inderjit Singh, President<br /> Smt.Paramjit Kaur, Member<br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the complainant: Sh.Amar Singh, adv.<br /> For opposite parties: Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainant,Manjit Singh has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against M/s Sood Communication, Mobile Repair & Computer Work, Ghanaur through its Proprietor and Incharge and Nokia Care Centre,Patiala- The opposite parties.<br /> 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this;<br /> That the complainant had purchased a Nokia set -72 from opposite party No.1 at a cost of Rs.12780/- vide cash memo No.400 dated 7.2.2007 with one year warranty. That the said mobile set started giving trouble i.e. no net work / no signal was clear. That the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 time and again and brought the said defect to his notice. But he did not respond positively. The complainant also requested to get the set repaired or replaced. That in spite of repeated requests of the complainant, the opposite party did not remove the defects nor replaced the set. At last, the opposite party No.1 referred the matter to the opposite party No.2 for repair. That the complainant lodged a complaint with the opposite party No.2 under complaint No.2507 dated probably 15.7.2007. The opposite party No.2 received the set for repairing the same. After 12-13 days m the set was returned to the complainant stating that there being a manufacturing defect, the needful could not be done. Moreover, spare parts of the set were not available at the repair centre. That the complainant again approached the opposite party No.1 but he flatly refused to oblige, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. That illegal and unwarranted action on the part of the opposite party caused harassment, torture and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties wherein they were directed to appear in the Forum on 29.10.2007 but they having failed to put in appearance were proceeded against exparte on 29.10.2007.<br /> 4. In the exparte evidence the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex.C1 and copy of bill dated 7.2.2007, Ex.C2.<br /> 5. The complainant filed written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the complainant.<br /> 6. Since the opposite parties have not chosen to contest the complaint, we have the uncontroverted submission of the complainant. According to the complainant he had purchased a Nokia set N-72 from the opposite party No.1 at the cost of Rs.12780/- vide cash memo No.400 dated 7.2.2007.The said set started giving trouble and the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 time and again and brought the said defect to the notice of opposite party No.1 but the opposite party No.1 did not respond positively. The complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to get the set repaired/replaced or return the price of the same. Then the opposite party No.1 referred the matter to the opposite party No.2 for repair. The complainant filed a complaint with the opposite party No.2 under complaint No.2507 dated 15.7.2007.The opposite party No.2 could not remove the defect and returned the set to the complainant stating that there being a manufacturing defect so that needful could not be done. It is also the case of the complainant that parts of the set were not available at the repair centre. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.1 to replace or return the cost of the set but it flatly refused to oblige which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.<br /> 7. We have considered the case of the complainant.<br /> 8. The perusal of the cash memo,Ex.C2 dated 7.2.2007 shows that the complainant had purchased a Nokia set N-72 from the opposite party No.1 at the cost of Rs.12780/-vide cash memo No.400.The perusal of the cash memo further shows that one year warranty was also given. According to the complainant the set so purchased started giving trouble as there was no net work and no signal was clear. In spite of approaching the opposite party so many times the defect in Nokia set could not be removed as there was a manufacturing defect .Thus ,we hold the opposite party No.1 to be deficient in rendering the service by not removing the defect in the Nokia set purchased by the complainant vide memo,Ex.C1.That being so we accept the complaint partly and direct the opposite party No.1 either to replace the Nokia set with the same make of the defect less Nokia set or refund the price i.e. Rs.12780/-with another sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation inclusive of costs for harassment, inconvenience and mental torture within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.<br /> File be consigned to the record.<br /> Pronounced.<br /> Dated: 12.11.2007<br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />