BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.152 of 2015

Date of Instt. 13.04.2015

Date of Decision :02.07.2015

Saurabh Sharma son of Shiv Kumar Sharma R/o 69-C, Harnam Dasspura, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1.M/s U.T.Electronics Pvt.Ltd, through its Managing Director/ Director/Manager, Registered Office-SCO 363-64, Chandigarh-160022, Branch Office:- Sant Vivekanand Road, Village Pahat, Zirakpur-140603.

2. M/s Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd, through its Manager Director/ Manager, Regd.Office:- Mobile House, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar-144001.

3. M/s Shree Communication, through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager, Shop No.5, Ist Floor, GS Bajwa Complex, Nakodar Road, Opposite Friend Bakery, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.AK Walia Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Akash Batra, Auth,Rep.for OPs No.1 & 3.

Opposite party No.2 exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the opposite party No.1 is the representative/importer/ customer care of M/s Dongguan Goldex Communication Technology Company Ltd, No.2, Science and Technology Industrial Park, Dalingshan Town, Dongguan City, China, the manufacturer of Gionee made mobile phone sets. Opposite parties are engaged in sales, after sales services and providing customer care to the general public for consideration particularly at Jalandhar with regards to the Gionee mobile phone sets. On the allurement from the advertisements of the opposite parties, the complainant purchased a latest Gionee mobile phone set E7 32GB 862583026252405 from opposite party No.2 vide retail invoice No.64370 dated 1.3.2014 for a sum of Rs.28,000/-. The said mobile phone set carried a warranty for a period of one year from the date of its purchase. Just within the warranty period the above said mobile phone set started giving problems of receiver not working, loudspeaker no sound. The complainant immediately approached the opposite party No.3 on 17.2.2015 and after removing the said problem the opposite party No.3 returned the mobile with the assurance that now the said mobile phone will not give the problem and will function properly. Again just within five days the above said mobile phone gave the same problem and on 23.2.2015 the said mobile phone set started giving the same problem in its functioning then the complainant again visited the place of opposite party No.3 and lodged the complaint with the opposite party No.3. On 13.3.2015 after collecting the above said mobile set from the place of opposite party No.3 he found that the set is not working and the representatives of the opposite party No.3 said the battery is not charged and on charging the battery the above said mobile will function properly and under protest the complainant did not give any receipt of the above said mobile to the representatives of the opposite party No.3. When on charging the above said mobile on 13.3.2015 the complainant found that there are two dots in display and immediately the complainant, firstly lodged the complaint with the opposite party No.1 on email to gcare@gionee.co.in with copy to shree.jalandhar@yahoo.com of the opposite party No.2 from Saurab Sharma <saurabsharma210@gmail.com> and immediately on 14.3.2015 the complainant visited the place of the opposite party No.3 and returned the said mobile phone to the opposite party No.3 but the representatives of the opposite party No.3 did not issue the receipt/service job sheet for the same. The above said mobile phone has manufacturing defect which could not be set right. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay him Rs.60,000/- as compensation.

2. Upon notice, opposite party no.2 did not appear and as such it was proceeded against exparte. However, Sh.Akash Batra, Authorized Representative, appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.1 and 3 and made a statement that they are ready to give new mobile handset to the complainant and they are not to file any written statement or to tender any evidence.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.

4. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and authorized representative of the opposite parties No.1 & 3.

5. The complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from opposite party No.2 on 1.3.2014 vide retail invoice Ex.C2 for Rs.28,000/-. According to the complainant, soon after purchase, the mobile handset repeatedly developed defects which the service centre i.e opposite party No.3 failed to rectify. The fact that Sh.Akash Batra, Authorized Representative on behalf of opposite parties No.1 and 3 has made a statement that they are ready to give new mobile handset to the complainant clearly proves that the mobile handset in question was defective and was beyond repair.

6. In view of above circumstances, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.1 & 3 are directed to give new mobile handset of the same make and model to the complainant with fresh warranty and in case same model is not available then to refund its price to him. The complainant is awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

02.07.2015 Member Member President