DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 23 of 27-01-2009<br /> Decided on : 03-07-2009 <br /> <br /> Rajinder Singh alias Harjinder Singh aged about 20 years S/o Sh. Bagga Singh R/o V.P.O. Mandeer, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Mukatsar.<br /> <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Neuron Technologies, Nokia Priority Dealer & Nokia Care Hanuman Chowk, Opposite MSD School, Bathinda, through its Partner/Proprietor. <br /> 2.Sushil Telecom 38/3044, Beadon Pura Karol Bagh, New Delhi, through its Manager/Proprietor (Deleted vide order dated 02-06-2009)<br /> 3.Managing Director, HCL Info System Limited, SCO 2453-54, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. George, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Complainant in person with his counsel Sh. Parveen Kumar<br /> For the Opposite parties : Opposite parties No. 1 & 3 exparte. Opposite party No. 2 deleted.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Sh. Rajinder Singh, complainant filed present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after called the 'Act') with the allegations that he was in need of one mobile hand set and accordingly, he approached opposite party No. 2, being authorised dealer/distributor of 'Nokia' company and opposite party No. 2 assured that the products of 'Nokia' company are of good quality and he has guarantee and warranty on the products and also assured best services. Believing his assurance, the complaint purchased one 'Nokia' mobile hand set N-73 for Rs. 14,800/- bearing serial No. 356406018609320 against bill No. 45 dated 04-12-2007 Ex. C-2, with guarantee/warranty for one year alongwith replacement option in case any major defect found to be in it. After he purchased the mobile hand set, it was found not properly working as it developed some technical problem due to some manufacturing defect and it became un-functional. Accordingly, complainant approached opposite party No. 1, an authorised service centre namely Neuron Technologies, Bathinda. Opposite party No. 1 prepared service job sheet No. 069343506/080902/15 dated 02-09-2008 Ex. C-3 and this job sheet was handed over to the complainant and the mobile hand set was retained by opposite party No. 1 for doing the needful. The complainant was assured that he may collect his mobile hand set after seven days. The complainant when approached opposite party No. 1, he found that his set was neither repaired nor replaced nor it was returned to the complainant. He was told that the mobile set has been sent to Chandigarh for repairs. Thereafter, whenever he visited opposite party No. 1 and inquired about his mobile set, opposite party No. 1 used to pick-up quarrels and also misbehaved with him. He pleaded that since his mobile set is retained by opposite party No. 1 on the pretext that set has been sent to opposite party No. 3 at Chandigarh for repairs since 02-09-2008, he has a founded belief that his mobile hand set has been lost by opposite party No. 1. The complainant further pleaded that he is taking diploma of BCA at Bathinda and has purchased the mobile set to meet out his requirements and on account of the conduct and negligence on the part of the opposite parties, he has suffered lot of harassment and botheration and also deprived of the use of mobile hand set. The 'Nokia' company has its authorised service centre at Bathinda i.e. opposite party No. 1 and believing 'Nokia' company that it has appointed an expert and competent service centre at Bathinda, the complainant handed over his mobile hand set to opposite party No. 1 for repairs as per service job sheet dated 02-09-2008 Ex. C-3. He asserts that since he has been deprived of the use of the mobile hand set despite the fact that he has spent huge amount of Rs. 14,800/- for the purchase of the same vide bill Ex. C-2 continuously from 2nd September, 2008 till date and therefore, he is not only entitled for an amount of Rs. 14,800/- being cost of the mobile hand set, but also for reasonable damages and litigation expenses from the opposite parties.<br /> 2. None of the opposite parties has come forward to contest the complaint and accordingly, they were proceeded against exparte whereas opposite party No. 2 who only issued bill Ex. C-2 was deleted during the course of proceedings of the complaint, when he could not be served.<br /> 3. The complainant has led exparte evidence. He has filed his affidavit Ex. C-1 wherein he has reiterated all the facts as pleaded in the complaint. He, in addition to his affidavit Ex. C-1, brought on record bill Ex. C-2 vide which he has purchased mobile hand set and service job sheet Ex. C-3 through which mobile hand set was handed over to opposite party No. 1, an authorised service centre for 'Nokia' company, on 02-09-2008. He also brought on record legal notice Ex. C-9, issued to the opposite parties.<br /> 4. We have heard the complainant in person, his counsel and perused the entire record of the case. <br /> 5. From the affidavit of the complainant Ex. C-1, it is apparently proved on the record that complainant purchased one N-73 'Nokia' mobile hand set for a consideration of Rs. 14,800/- vide bill Ex. C-2 from opposite party No. 2 and after the purchase, mobile hand started giving problem and the complainant in order to get the defect rectified, visited an authorised service centre for 'Nokia' company situated at Bathinda under the name and style of M/s. Neuron Technologies, Nokia Priority Dealer & Nokia Care. The mobile hand set of the complainant was received by opposite party No. 1 after preparing a service job sheet Ex. C-3 on 02-09-2007 and it was retained by him for doing the needful. When the complainant visited opposite party No. 1 for return of his mobile hand set, he was informed that his set has been sent to opposite party No. 3 at Chandigarh for repairs. The complainant repeatedly visited opposite party No. 1 for the return of his mobile hand set, but opposite party No. 1 kept on lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and did not return his mobile hand set. It appears from the record that the complainant has definitely suffered not only inconvenience but also mental torture and harassment on account of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 & 3, as it was incumbent upon opposite party No. 1 as an agent i.e. 'Nokia Care Centre' to look into the genuine grievances of the complainant and his mobile hand set should have been returned after due repairs within a reasonable time. Non-return of the mobile hand set of the complainant for such a long time i.e. from 02-09-2008 till date and also by not giving any reasonable explanation for the same is itself amounts not only deficiency in service but also amounts causing un-necessary harassment, mental torture and inconvenience to the complainant. Under these circumstances, apprehension of the complainant that opposite party No. 1 might have lost his mobile hand set appears to be quite genuine.<br /> 6. Under the facts, circumstances and the material brought on record by the complainant, we are satisfied that the opposite parties No. 1 & 3 are lacking in providing adequate service and have caused un-necessary inconvenience and harassment to the complainant as opposite party No. 1 has kept mobile hand set of the complainant in his possession from 02-09-2008 onwards and he has been deprived of its legitimate use for which he has spent a huge amount of Rs. 14,800/- and therefore, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for the following reliefs :<br /> i) Refund of the price of mobile hand set i.e Rs. 14,800/-.<br /> ii) Compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for causing inconvenience, harassment,mental agony and depriving the complainant for legitimate use of his mobile hand set.<br /> iii) Since the complainant has been forced to file the present litigation for legitimate redressal of his grievance for which he might have spent for legal assistance etc., therefore, we assess the litigation expenses in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case to the tune of Rs. 2,000/-.<br /> 7. Reliefs given at Sr. No. (ii) & (iii) will be borne by opposite parties No. 1 & 3 jointly and severally whereas relief given at Sr. No. 1 will be borne by opposite party No. 1 only.<br /> 8. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. <br /> The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and file be indexed and consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 03-07-2009 <br /> <br /> (George)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member