DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 443 of 2010 Date of Inst:19.07.2010 Date of Decision:25.01.2011 Nirmal Singh aged about 61 years s/o Dharam Singh r/o H.No.2649, Sector 67, SAS Nagar (Mohali). ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. National Watch House, SCO 1031, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Proprietor. 2. Ranyodh Singh, Prop. Cyber Electronics (India), Authorized Spice Service Center, SCO 170, 1st Floor, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh (U.T.). 3. Executive Spice Mobile Ltd., D-1, Sector 3, Noida-201301, U.P.India. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER PRESENT: Complainant in person. OPs No.1 and 2 exparte. None for OP-3. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Nirmal Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) Pay Rs.1500/- on account of financial loss for calling, visiting, transportation charges etc. ii) Pay Rs.20000/- on account of deficiency in service. iii) Pay Rs.25000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iv) Replace the mobile set with the new mobile set. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that, he purchased a spice Dual Sim Mobile (M-5252_ bearing No.IMEI No.910020014930488 from OP-1 against invoice No.98 dated 06.04.2010 for Rs.2700/-. According to the complainant, on inserting the sims, the mobile phone was showing time and date and its main menu switch was not working. The complainant approached OP-1 on 10.04.2010 who after checking the mobile phone handed over to him with the assurance that the same will work properly. Later on, the speaker of the mobile stopped functioning. So complainant again approached OP-1 and apprised it about the problems. OP-1 kept the mobile for a week and thereafter returned the same and advised the complainant to approach OP-2 (authorized service center). Thereafter, the complainant approached OP-2 on 22.05.2010 and 05.06.2010 with the complaint that the mobile phone is not working properly and the same was returned to him after repairs with the assurance that the mobile phone will not give any problem in future. According to the complainant, the mobile phone in question is giving problems frequently. According to the complainant, the mobile phone has some inherent defect. So it needs replacement. Despite repeated requests, OPs have failed to replace the same. Hence, this complaint. 3. OPs No.1 and 2 were duly served but nobody appeared on their behalf either in person or through counsel. Therefore, they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.08.2010. 4. In the reply filed by the OP-3, it has been pleaded that the complainant has no case against it and the complainant has failed to show any deficiency in service on its part. In these circumstances, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against it. 4. As none is present on behalf of the OP-3, therefore we proceed to dispose of the complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 even in the absence of the OP-3. We heard the complainant in person and have perused the record and gone through the documents very carefully. 6. The averments made in the complaint as reproduced above in para No.2 of the order stands corroborated from the affidavit of the complainant as well as the Annexures C-1 to C-3.. Annexure C-1 is the copy of the invoice No. 98 dated 06.04.2010. From this document, it is proved that the mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.2700/-. The copy of the job cards dated 22.05.2010 and 05.06.2010 have also been placed on record. From these documents, it is apparent that the handset in question was having auto switch off, low backup and call drop problems. The complainant in his affidavit deposed that he had purchased the handset from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.2700/- but since the day of its purchase, it is giving problem. He sent the mobile set for repairs but the same has not been working properly. Otherwise also, the allegations made in the complaint have gone unrebutted and uncontroverted as nobody appeared on behalf of the OPs No.1 and 2 to contest the case. Thus, it is held that the mobile set in question is suffering from some inherent problems which cannot be rectified and the refusal of the OPs No.1 and 2 to replace it with another new handset despite his repeated requests amounts deficiency in service. 7. The complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against OP-3 and hence, the complaint against OP-3 stands dismissed. 8. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs No.1 and 2 to replace the handset in question with a new handset of the same model and make with warranty of fresh one year. OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2500/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.1500/- as costs of litigations. 9. This order be complied with by OPs No.1 and 2 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs No.1 and 2 shall be liable to pay Rs.5200/- (i.e. Rs.2700/- being the price of mobile set and Rs.2500/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment) to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint i.e. 19.07.2010 till its realization besides costs of litigation. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 25.01.2011 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
