DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                          Complaint no. 634              

                                                           Instituted on    01.12.2014

                                                          Decided on       17.03.2015

Ramandeep Sharma son of Baldev Raj Sharma resident of Sunami Gate, Sangrur Tehsil & District Sangrur.    

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

1.     National times, Court Road, Sangrur, District Sangrur.

2.     Nokia Care Centre, Patiala Gate, Sangrur.

3.     Nokia X2 IMEI No.353646061849389, Ganesh Traders, Patiala Gate, Sangrur.

4.     Nokia India Sales Pvt. Limited, SP Infocity, Plot #243, Udyog Vihar, Phase I Dundahera, Gurgaon-122016.

      ….Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT     Shri Parampreet Singh  Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1          Shri Amit Goyal, Advocate                     

FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.2&3  Shri Kali Ram Garg, Advocate                    

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.4          Exparte                    

Quorum

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                    K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

ORDER    

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

1.             Ramandeep Sharma, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a Nokia X2 IMEI No.353646061849389 mobile phone from the OP No.1 for Rs.8400/- under retail invoice number 8858 dated 12.09.2014.  At the time of purchase of said mobile set, one year warranty was given by OPs. The said mobile set stopped working on 05.11.2014 then OP No.2 was approached who kept the said mobile phone with it and issued receipt dated 11.11.2014. He also told the complainant that the same will be repaired within a week or otherwise same will be replaced with new one. But despite repeated visits the OPs had not returned the mobile phone after repair/ replacement. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs - 

i)      OPs be directed to refund Rs.8400/ - as cost of the mobile set in question,

ii )    OPs be directed to pay to the complainant compensation amount and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP No.1, legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, cause of action, locus standi and suppression of material facts have been heard. On merits, it is submitted that the mobile set of the complainant was having one year warranty. It is submitted that the complainant never approached the OP after the purchase of the mobile set in question. Moreover the warranty has been provided by the manufacturer of the mobile set and not by the dealer or seller of the product.  It is further submitted that there is no allegation as to any deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.

3.             In reply filed by the OPs No.2&3, it is admitted that the mobile set in question was handed over on behalf of the complainant to OP No.2 with a complaint of its not properly working on 11.11.2014. The person concerned was informed by the OP No.2 that the set will be sent to OP No.4 for the checking and necessary action.  The mobile set in question was retained by the OP No.2 for sending the same to OP No.4 for checking.  The said mobile was sent by OP No.2   on 14.11.2014 to OP No.4 for necessary repair which was returned by OP No.4 after duly repaired on 24.11.2014. Thereafter the complainant was informed  about the receipt of the same in working condition but he refused to take the delivery of the same.  It is denied that  the complainant visited the premises of the OP No.2 for 8-10 times. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.2&3

4.             After receipt of complaint, notice was sent to the OP  No.4 but no one appeared for it and as such OP No.4 was proceeded exparte on 05.01.2015.

5.             In support of his case the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence.  On the other hand OPs No.1,2 and3 have tendered documents Ex.OP1/1 and Ex.OPs No.2&3/1  to Ex.OPs No.2&3/2and closed evidence.

6.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file, we find  that the complainant purchased one Nokia X2 mobile set manufactured by OP No.4 from  the OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.8400/- vide  retail invoice number 8858 dated 12.09.2014 which is Ex.C-1 on record.  The complainant has also produced copy of job sheet issued by OP No.2 on 11.11.2014 Ex.C-2 in which it is mentioned that the mobile set in question is completely dead. On the other hand, OP No.1  has produced only an affidavit of Naresh Kumar Ex.OP1/1 and OPs No.2 and 3 have also tendered an affidavit of Shri Surinder Kumar Gupta proprietor Ganesh Traders Patiala Gate, Sangrur Ex.OPs2&2/1. 

7.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and thoroughly perusing the entire documents produced on record by the parties, we find that the complainant has stated in the complaint that the mobile set in question became dead on 05.11.2014 and the same was brought to the service station at Nokia Care Centre and at Ganesh Traders Patiala Gate Sangrur as the both are situated in the same premises and on receiving the mobile set  they assured that the same will be sent to  the company i.e. OP No.4 for repairs but when again the complainant went to the OPs No.2 and 3 they issued a service job sheet Ex.C-2 in which they themselves have mentioned that the mobile set is completely dead. The OPs No.2 and 3 had also admitted in the document Ex.OPs2&3/1 that the mobile set Nokia X2 having  IMEI number 35364606184938 was received by them on 11.11.2014 with the assurance that the same will be sent to OP No.4 for checking and the repair. But since then the OPs No.2 and 3 had not made any effort to deliver the mobile set in question to the complainant in proper working condition but after the complainant had filed the present complaint the same was brought in the Forum on 20.01.2015 i.e. after a gap of more than two months which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as they have not even repaired the new mobile set which was purchased vide document Ex.C-1 on 12.09.2014 by the complainant for his daily use.

8.             Learned counsel for the OPs have also argued that the complainant has not produced any expert evidence in support of his version with regard to the manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question but on  the perusal of the documents placed on record we find that the mobile set in question was with the OPs No.2 and 3 since 11.11.2014 and the complainant had no occasion to get the same examined from any expert. As the mobile set was with the OPs so the onus to prove that whether the mobile set in question was having manufacturing defect or not was with the OPs. Though the OPs have produced the mobile set during the proceedings of the complaint on 20.01.2015 but they have not led any evidence that the said mobile set was in proper working condition and there was no manufacturing defect in it. They could have placed on record the evidence of their own technical person with regard to their version that the mobile set was not having any manufacturing defect. Now, since they have not led any such evidence and in the service job sheet it is clearly mentioned that the mobile set in question is “completely dead”. The mention of  completely dead in the service job sheet itself speaks that the mobile in question was dead due to the manufacturing defect and OPs have retained the same for more than two months with them and in order to redress the grievance, the complainant had to file the present complaint. The Hon’ble National Commission in Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra & Another, 2010 (2) CPC 67 has held that  dealer cannot be made liable  unless vehicle is sold  on rule of principal to principal. The dealer  had acted only as inter-mediatory between manufacturer and consumer, so the dealer is not liable.  

9.             So, in view of the facts stated above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP No.4 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.8400/- as price amount of the mobile set in question. The mobile set in question is already with the Nokia Care Centre i.e. OP No.2.  We further order the OPs No.2 to 4 to pay to the complainant an amount of compensation of Rs.6000/- on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.

10.           This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.

                Announced.

March 17, 2015.

( Sarita Garg)        ( K.C.Sharma)       ( Sukhpal Singh Gill)           

Member                Member                    President

BBS/-