Punjab

Patiala

CC/14/216

Jaspsreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/sG S Enterprises Lahori Gate - Opp.Party(s)

Sh MPS Sahi

09 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

Complaint No. CC/14/216 of 08/08/2014

Decided on 09/03/2015

 

Jaspreet Singh son of Sh. Harbhajan Singh, resident of House no.456/3, Khalsa Mohalla, Patiala. ….Complainant.

Versus

 

1. M/s G. S. Enterprises, Lahori Gate, Gaushala road, Patiala through its Proprietor/Manager.

2. S. Mobility Ltd., S. Global Knowledge Park, 19-A & 19-B, Sector 125, Noida-201301, Uttar Pradesh, India through its Authorized Representative/ Managing Director.

3. Image Services, Shop no.74-75, Chotti Baradari Market, Patiala through its Manager.

….Opposite parties.

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM

Sh. D. R. Arora, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

Smt. Sonia Bansal, Member

 

Present:

For Complainant : Sh. Parminder Singh Pannu Adv.

For Opposite party no. 2 : Ex-parte.

For Opposite party no.3 : Sh. Rohit Bansal Proprietor of OP no.3.

 

ORDER

NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER:

1. The complainant purchased one mobile hand set make Spice, model No.M1-491 from Op no.1 vide invoice no.1380 dt.23/10/2013 for an amount of Rs.8500/-. It is averred that within a few days of the said purchase, certain problems like automatic on/off, hanging out during working and non-working of software applications cropped up in the mobile phone. The complainant approached OP no.1, who told him to contact OP no.3, the same being the authorized service centre of the company, where after checking the mobile phone, the service engineer told the complainant that there was a fault in the battery connector of the mobile phone and he replaced the same with a new one and returned the mobile phone to the complainant.

2. It is further averred that the mobile phone worked properly for some days and thereafter, it again started giving problem. The complainant again approached OP no.3 on 24/02/2014 and deposited the mobile handset with it vide service request no.191000091E20177. Thereafter, the complainant visited the service centre time and again but the officials of the service centre told the complainant that the mobile phone had been sent to Chandigarh for rectification and the moment mobile set comes back it will be handed over to the complainant. Likewise, OP no.3 kept on lingering on the matter under one pretext or the other.

3. On 22/05/2014, the complainant served a legal notice upon the OPs but to no use. As the defect occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period, OPs were bound to rectify the defect, which they did not do and it amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Ultimately, the complainant approached this Forum u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( for short the Act).

4. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against OPs no.2 & 3 only. OP no.2 appeared through counsel but failed to file its reply to the complaint and was thus proceeded against ex-parte. Whereas, OP no.3 appeared in person and filed its reply to the complaint. It is admitted by the OP that the complainant had deposited the mobile handset with it on 24/2/2014 for rectification of the problem. On receiving the mobile hand set OP no.3 sent the same to company's higher level Service centre at Mohali and after rectification of the defect in the mobile phone OP no.3 told the complainant to collect the mobile phone but the complainant refused to take it rather started demanding the replacement with a new mobile phone which was beyond the power of OP no.3. After denying all other allegations levelled against OP no.3, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5. In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and his counsel closed the evidence. On the other hand OP no.3 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, his sworn affidavit and closed the evidence.

6. Parties failed to file written arguments. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant, OP no.3 in person and gone through the evidence placed on record.

7. Ex.C-1 is the copy of the invoice vide which the complainant purchased the mobile phone from OP no.1. Ex.C-2 is the copy of the job sheet, whereby the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.3 on 24/02/2014. It is the case of the complainant that on receiving the mobile phone, OP no.3 sent it to its Higher level service centre at Mohali and the complainant contacted OP no.3 time and again but OP no.3 kept on lingering the matter under one pretext or the other. Whereas the only plea taken by OP no.3 is that on receiving back the mobile hand set after rectification of the defect from the higher level service centre at Mohali. OP no.3 told the complainant to collect the mobile phone but the complainant refused to accept it rather he started demanding the replacement with a new mobile handset. On 18/12/2014 OP no.3 brought the repaired mobile phone but when the performance of the same was checked, the same was not found working as even the ringer was not working and OP no.3 took back the mobile phone. The mobile hand set was handed over to OP no.3 vide job sheet Ex.C-2 dt. 24/02/2014 and now it is lying with it.

8. In the present case, it seems that there is some manufacturing defect in the mobile phone which is irrepairable. Failure on the part of OP no.2, to contest the claim of the complainant also shows its indifferent attitude to solve the complaint of the complainant.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, We accept the complaint with a direction to OP no.2 to replace the mobile hand set with a new one of the same model and if that is not possible to refund an amount of Rs.8500/-, the price of the mobile phone. OP no.2 is also obliged to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for the harassment and the mental agony undergone by the complainant which is inclusive of the cost of litigation. Order be complied by OP no.2 within a period of one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order. On failure to comply with the order within one month, OP no.2 shall be liable to refund the price with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced

Dated: 09/03/2015.

 

Sonia Bansal D. R. Arora Neelam Gupta

Member President Member