Haryana

Karnal

791/11

Nitin Walia - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Swagat Comunication - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. D.P. Kharb

20 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                         

                                                          Complaint No. 791 of 2011

                                                          Date of instt.: 14.11.2011

                                                          Date of decision:20.11.2015

 

Nitin Walia son of Shri Virender Walia resident of House No.1420,Sector 13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                   Vs.

 

1.M/s Swagat Communication, 220-221, Ist Floor, Kunjpura Road, Karnal through its owner.

2.Nokia India Pvt.Ltd.2^nd Floor Commercial Plaza, Radisson Hotel NH-8, Mahipalpur, New Delhi – 37, through its Managing Director.

3.Shri Nath Ji  Communication, Nokia Service Centre, Shop No.8, Nehru Palace, Karnal through its Owner.

                                                                  …..Opposite Parties.

 

                    Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Smt. Shashi Sharma……….Member.

                  

Present:-       Sh.D.P.Kharb Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Amish Goel Advocate for OP No.3.

                   OP No.1 and 2 ex parte.

ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act  1986 ,on the averments that  he purchased one Nokia Mobile phone Model No.C3-01 Silver, EMEI No.358299042268041  from Opposite Party ( in short OP) No.1 on 14.9.2011 for Rs.8200/- .The said mobile was carrying  warranty of one year in all respects. Since the date of purchase, the mobile was having problem in the camera as there was no clarity  in the picture. Therefore, he approached the OP no.1 for repairs/replacement. The OP no.1 asked him to contact  OP no.3, the authorized  service centre of manufacturer OP No.2. Therefore, on 26.9.2011, he approached the OP no.3, who  checked the mobile and told that mobile was having manufacturing defect and as such required replacement from the company. OP no.3 asked to leave the mobile at the service centre and  assured that HE  would get the same replaced within ten days. Accordingly, he left the mobile at the service centre of OP no.3. Thereafter, he visited the service centre of OP no.3 a number of times, but Op No.3  always postponed the  matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to do the needful in the matter. In this way, there was  deficiency in services on the part of the  Ops, which caused mental agony and harassment to him apart from financial loss.

 

2.                The notice of the complaint was sent to the Ops. None put into appearance on behalf of OP no.1, therefore, ex parte proceedings were initiated against OP no.,1 vide  order dated 6.1.2012.

 

                   OP no.2 appeared through Shri  Deepak Sandhu Advocate but none appeared on its behalf  on 9.9.2014, therefore, OP no.2 was also proceeded against ex parte.

 

3.                OP no.3 filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; and that complaint is an abuse of the process of  law and has been filed just to harass and humiliate OP no.3.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that no  expert opinion has been obtained as envisaged u/s 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, to prove that mobile  phone is not working properly.  The complainant visited the office of OPno.3 only on one occasion and on the same day software was updated. OP no.3 did not tell the complainant that there was manufacturing defect and he was never promised to get the mobile phone replaced from the company. However, OP no.3  sent the mobile to the office of OP no.2 to get the same checked and after checking the OPno.2 found liquid near camera conn And due to that warranty of the mobile became void. It has been denied that mobile in question is in custody of OPno.3.The other allegations made in the complaint have also been denied.

 

4.                In evidence of the complainant, he filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                 As per the case of the complainant, there was problem in the camera of the mobile phone purchased by him from OP no.1,  from the very beginning and the same was left by him on 26.9.2011 with the OP no.3. It has not been replaced by the Ops so far. The OP no.3 in the written statement admitted the fact that complainant purchased the mobile phone and the same was sent by OP no.3 to the OP no.2 for the purpose of checking. It has been submitted that  after  checking liquid near camera conn was found due to which the warranty became void.

 

7.                 The complainant in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A reiterated the allegations made in the complaint.  The copy of invoice Ex.C1 shows that complainant had purchased one Nokia mobile phone model C3-01 Silver from OP no.1 on 14.9.2010. Service job sheet Ex.C3 is dated 26.9.2011, wherein it was mentioned that there was error message in the camera of the mobile phone. This fact was also admitted on the service job sheet that mobile phone of the complainant was kept by OP no.3   and in place thereof a stand by set was given to him for use. This oral as well as documentary evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.  On the service job sheet it was not mentioned that there was liquid near the camera conn. The defect in the camera of the mobile phone had occurred just after 12 days of the purchase because, the mobile phone was purchased on 14.9.2011 and the same was taken to service centre of OP no.3 on 26.9.2011.  Under such circumstances, the allegation of OP no.3 that liquid was found near the camera conn cannot be  believed. Therefore, the act of the Ops not repairing or replacing the mobile phone within the warranty period certainly amounted to deficiency in services on their part.

 

8.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to repair the mobile set of the complainant which is in possession of OP No.3 as per service job sheet Ex.C3, and if the same is not repairable, then replace the mobile phone of the complainant. The complainant shall also be entitled for  a sum of Rs.5500/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses. The Ops shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file lbe consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:20.11.2015                                                                             

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

        Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-       Sh.D.P.Kharb Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Amish Goel Advocate for OP No.3.

                   OP No.1 and 2 ex parte.

 

                    Arguments not ready. For arguments, the case is adjourned to 20.11.2015.

 

Announced
dated:17.11.2015                                                                            

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member

 

 

Present:-       Sh.D.P.Kharb Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Amish Goel Advocate for OP No.3.

                   OP No.1 and 2 ex parte.

 

                    Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:17.11.2015                                                                            

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

        Member.