View 9785 Cases Against Mobile
Aman Pal Singh filed a consumer case on 17 Feb 2016 against National Mobile Repair in the Moga Consumer Court. The case no is CC/15/94 and the judgment uploaded on 04 Mar 2016.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.
C.C. No. 94 of 2015
Instituted on: 01.12.2015
Decided on: 17.02.2016
Aman Pal Singh, aged about 40 years, s/o Sh.Joginder Singh, Resident of House No.1482, Krishna Nagar, Gali No.4, Akalsar Road, Moga.
Complainant
Versus
1. National Mobile Repair, 5 Red Cross Market, Old Court Road, Moga.
2. Arun Mobile Care, Kotakpura Road, Main Bazar, Moga.
3. UG Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office SCO-363-364, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.
Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Coram: Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Smt.Vinod Bala, Member
Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member
Present: Sh.Aman Pal Singh complainant in person.
Opposite parties nos.1 to 3 exparte.
ORDER
(S.S.Panesar, President)
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12/14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for directing the opposite parties to replace mobile hand set make Gionee P.2S, IMEI no.865901020035377 Colour White purchased from opposite party no.1 vide bill no.1397 dated 25.12.2014 or to refund the amount of Rs.5800/- the price of the above said mobile hand set (here-in-after called gadget for the purpose of brevity) and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation, damages, mental tension and deficient services or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper on the allegations that opposite party no.1 is carrying on its business under the name and style of M/s National Mobile Repair, 5 Red Cross Market, Old Court Road, Moga. Opposite party no.2 Arun Mobile Care, Kotakpura Road, Main Bazar, Moga is Authorized Service Centre of Gionee company. Opposite party no.3 is the manufacturer/distributor of the above said gadget. Complainant is law abiding citizen and have good reputation in Moga and its surrounding area. Complainant has purchased the gadget fully detailed and described in the head note of complaint on 25.12.2014 worth Rs.5800/- from opposite party no.1. At the time of delivery, opposite party no.1 gave guarantee for one year against any manufacturing defect. Since the time of purchase till date the gadget is not working properly and has become a headache for the complainant. After few days of the purchase, the gadget went out of service. The complainant approached opposite party no.1 and lodged the complaint and the complainant was told to contact opposite party no.2. Accordingly, the complainant visited opposite party no.2 and he was told that software of the mobile hand set is not working properly and software was replaced accordingly. Even then, the mobile hand set did not work properly. Complainant again approached opposite party no.2 and after checking they told the complainant that battery of the gadget is not working properly and the same is required to be replaced and thereafter battery of the same was replaced. Even then, the gadget did not work properly. The complainant again approached opposite party no.2 and after checking they told the complainant that motherboard of the gadget is not working properly and the same was replaced accordingly. But, however, the mobile hand set again did not work properly and the complainant had to approach opposite party no.2, who after checking told the complainant that gadget is required to be reset. After getting the gadget repaired from the opposite party no.2 for a number of times, it did not work satisfactorily. There is a problem of hang over in the gadget and the screen showed that the application is not responding. The complainant is working as tailor and he had to suffer loss financially, socially and economically. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party no.1 appeared in person and filed written reply contradicting the allegations made in the complaint and prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. However, after filing written reply, none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1. As such, opposite party no.1 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.02.2016. Sh. Arun Gulati, Proprietor appeared on behalf of opposite parties no.2 & 3 at the first instance. But neither any written reply was filed nor, the proprietor chose to contest the complaint. On 21.01.2016, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No. 2&3 and they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
3. In his exparte evidence, complainant Aman Pal Singh appeared in witness box as his own witness and filed his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1. Besides that he produced the copies of the documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed his exparte evidence.
4. We have heard the complainant in person and have also carefully gone through the record placed on file.
5. The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone un-rebutted on record, because the opposite parties despite due service did not opt to contest the case, even though the opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written reply and opposite parties no.2 & 3 also appeared through Sh.Arun Gulati, Proprietor, but thereafter they had suffered ex parte voluntarily on 21.1.2016, which shows that the opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter. The statement of the complainant is quite exhaustive and it proves his case to the hilt. The complainant has produced on record photocopy of the bill Ex.C5 vide which the gadget in dispute was purchased for an amount of Rs.5800/- by the complainant from opposite party no.1. Letter of warranty accounts for Ex.C8, which was in vogue till the filing of complaint on 1.12.2015. The complainant has also given the detail regarding his various visits to opposite party no.2 for getting the gadget repaired, copy of message detail accounts for Ex.C9. Since the complainant had to visit the service centre time and again for getting the gadget repaired, it means and implies that the gadget was suffering from some manufacturing defect. It is also the case of the complainant that the gadget was suffering from manufacturing defect. The complainant has also filed duly sworn affidavit to the effect that the gadget suffered from hang over and was not giving satisfactory service at all. In such a situation, there was no need for the complainant to produce some expert opinion for proving that the gadget suffered from some manufacturing defect. As such, it is held that the complainant is entitled to refund of the price of the gadget in dispute to the tune of Rs. 5800/-, because the gadget was suffering from manufacturing defect and it was beyond the scope of repairs. Besides that, the complainant is also entitled to a sum of Rs.3000/-(Three thousand only) on account of compensation, damages, mental tension and deficient services. Opposite party no.1 being seller, opposite party no.2 being Service Care Centre and opposite party no.3 being the Manufacturer are jointly, severally and co-extensively liable to pay sum awarded to the complainant on return of gadget in dispute by him. Consequently, the instant complaint succeeds. Opposite parties are given one month's time for making the payment of the sum in dispute, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint until full and final recovery of the awarded amount. The complaint stands allowed ex-parte accordingly. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
(Bhupinder Kaur) (Vinod Bala) (S.S. Panesar)
Member Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:17.02.2016.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.