Punjab

Bhatinda

CC/14/260

Raj Nath gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Unitech - Opp.Party(s)

Ritesh singla

08 Sep 2014

ORDER

Final Order of DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,Govt.House No.16-D, Civil Station, Near SSP Residence,BATHINDA-151001
PUNJAB
 
Complaint Case No. CC/14/260
 
1. Raj Nath gupta
son of Khanhaiya lal son of Sh.Naresh Gupta r/o Gidderbaha
Sri Mukatsar sahib
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/s Unitech
shop no.6383/2481,Bangi House street Mehna marg, Near Old Bus stand Bathinda
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONABLE MRS. Vikramjit Kaur Soni PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Sukhwinder Kaur MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Jarnail Singh MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Ritesh singla, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.260 of 21-04-2014

Decided on 08-09-2014

Raj Nath Gupta aged about 23 years S/o Khanhaiya Lal S/o Ram Naresh Gupta R/o Gidderbaha, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Sri Mukatsar Sahib.

 

........Complainant

Versus

 

1.M/s Unitech, Shop No.6383/2481, Bangi House Street, Mehna Marg, Near Old Bus Stand, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner.

2.Micromax Informatics Limited, Plot No.21/14, Block-A, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110028, through its MD.

3.M/s Mobile Zone, Gidderbha, District Sri Mukatsar Sahib, through its Proprietor/Partner.

.......Opposite parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Ritesh Singla, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Amit Ghai, counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

Opposite party No.3 ex-parte.

ORDER

 

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he has purchased one mobile handset of Micromax company, make A116(W) bearing IMEI No.911304253713469 and 911304254223468 for Rs.14,000/- from the opposite party No.3 with one year warranty on 5.6.2013. At the time of selling of the abovesaid mobile handset, the opposite party No.3 assured the complainant that it is of the best quality and there is no complaint regarding its functioning and further assured him to provide the best services in case of any defect. After the purchase of the abovesaid mobile handset, it started giving the problem of charging, as its battery was not charging properly whenever it was put on the charger and it was also not giving the proper battery back-up and its touch was not working properly. The complainant approached the shop of the opposite party No.1 for 3-4 times and reported it the defects in the mobile handset in question, but the opposite party No.1 used to provide the formal service to it and could not rectify the defect, as the abovesaid mobile handset continued giving the same problem. The complainant again approached the office of the opposite party No.1 on 10.3.2014 and complained about the defects regarding touch and battery back-up etc., but the opposite party No.1 again provided the formal service to the mobile handset in question with the assurance that there would be no problem in its functioning in future. Again the abovesaid mobile handset did not work properly, as it continued giving the same problem of battery back-up and touch. The complainant again visited the office of the opposite party No.1 on 5.4.2014, it retained the abovesaid mobile handset vide job sheet No.8677. Since then the mobile handset in question is lying with the opposite party No.1 and the same could not be repaired by it. The complainant time and again visited the shop of the opposite party No.1, but the defect could not be rectified in the abovesaid mobile handset, as there is some manufacturing defect in it. The complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to replace the abovesaid defective mobile handset with new one, as it is within the warranty period and the defect has occurred in it only within few days of its purchase, but to no effect. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to replace the abovesaid defective mobile handset with new one or in alternative to refund its price alongwith cost and compensation or to give him any other additional or alternative relief for which he may be found entitled to.

2. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant purchased the abovesaid mobile handset on 5.6.2013 and deposited it with the authorized service centre on 10.3.2014 for the problem of display and battery back-up that has been duly repaired and returned to him by the opposite party No.1. Thereafter the abovesaid mobile handset again started giving the problem of battery back-up and during inspection its battery has been found defective and the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 demanded charges for the battery, as it having the warranty of 6 months only and mobile handset is 10 months old on 5.4.2014, but the complainant refused to pay the charges and opposite party Nos.1 and 2 rectified the touch problem. The mobile handset in question is ready with the opposite party No.1, it called several times to the complainant to collect it, but he did not turn up for the same. The abovesaid mobile handset is lying with the opposite party No.1 in a repaired condition and complainant can collect his mobile handset from it. The warranty period covers the range of faults that ensue normally from mechanical functioning of the mobile handset without any interference or outside influences. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 further pleaded that they would repair the abovesaid mobile handset free of cost, if it is covered under warranty. As per the limited warranty terms the replacement is limited only to those case where repair is not possible or where there is a genuine problem of repeated repairs of the same problem. There is no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in question, as the complainant has not produced any expert report to support his allegations as required under the law.

3. Registered notice has been sent to the opposite party No.3 on dated 12.5.2014 vide postal receipt No.A RP371428087IN but despite receiving the summons, none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.3 before this Forum, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against it.

4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

6. In the mobile handset in question there was problems regarding charging, as its battery was not charging properly whenever it was put on the charger and it was not giving the proper battery back-up and there was problem relating to 'touch' also. Despite repeated repairs, the defects regarding the touch and battery back-up were not removed. The complainant has purchased the abovesaid mobile handset on 5.6.2013 and deposited it with the authorized service centre on 10.3.2014 for the problem of display and battery back-up that has been duly repaired and returned to him by the opposite party No.1. After sometime the abovesaid mobile handset again started giving the problem of battery back-up and after inspection it was found that the battery is defective and the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 demanded charges for the battery, as it was having warranty of 6 months only and mobile handset is 10 months old on 5.4.2014. The opposite party No.1 removed the touch problem, but the complainant refused to pay the charges. Since then the mobile handset in question is ready with the opposite party No.1, but the complainant has not approached the opposite party No.1 to collect it.

7. A perusal of record placed on file shows that the opposite party No.1 has retained the mobile handset in question vide job sheet No.8677 dated 5.4.2014. Prior to this job sheet dated 10.3.2014, Ex.C3, shows that there was problems regarding 'display blank, display 5305, charging/battery back up battery empty, sometimes LCD blink & battery backup', meaning thereby there was problems

 

 

regarding 'display, battery backup and LCD blink'. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 submitted that there was warranty of 6 months on the abovesaid mobile handset, but no such document has been produced by them to prove their this version. Even on job sheet dated 5.4.2014, Ex.C2, the warranty as per POP is mentioned as 'I/W' i.e. product in warranty. In this job sheet no remarks has been given that the warranty is only for 6 months. The complainant has purchased the abovesaid mobile handset on 5.6.2013 and defects have occurred in it on 10.3.2014 and 5.4.2014. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have specifically mentioned in their written statement that the abovesaid mobile handset is lying repaired in the custody of the opposite party No.1 and complainant has never approached the opposite party No.1 to collect it and they have called the complainant to collect his mobile handset, but no such evidence has been placed on file by them to show that they have ever contacted him for collecting his mobile handset. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have neither handed over the repaired mobile handset to the complainant or have produced it before this Forum, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Furthermore the opposite parties have neither produced any job sheet before this Forum that the mobile handset is lying in the repaired condition in the service centre. At the same time the complainant has failed to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in question and has not produced on file any expert evidence to prove his this version, thus the defect in the abovesaid mobile handset is repairable. The opposite party No.1 kept the mobile handset in question with it since 5.4.2014 i.e. for approximately 5 months, thus it debars the complainant to take the optimum use of his mobile handset.

8. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Hence this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.3. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to handover the repaired mobile handset in question to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

9. The compliance with regard to cost and compensation be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

08-09-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

 

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

 

 

(Jarnail Singh) Member

 
 
[HONABLE MRS. Vikramjit Kaur Soni]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sukhwinder Kaur]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Jarnail Singh]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.