DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 95 of 2.3.2016
Decided on: 29.12.2016
Jasbir Singh Sandhu son of Sh.Paramjit Singh Sandhu, resident of House No.19, Hargobind Nagar, Opposite Govt. Press, Sirhind Road, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., 5-F, Tower A&B, Cyber Green, DLF Cyber City, Sector 25-A, Gurgaon-122002(Haryana) through its Managing Director.
2. The Jyoti Enterprises, Basement Kohli Shopping Complex, Near 22 Number Railway Phatak, Patiala.
3. The Authorized Service Centre of Nokia India Private Limited, Near Hotel Jiwan Plaza Bhupindra Road, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Jasbir Singh Sandhu, complainant in person.
Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Jasbir Singh Sandhu has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To replace the mobile phone in question with new one or in the alternative
- To pay Rs.14,300/-(cost of mobile phone)
- To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of harassment & mental torture etc,
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 21.3.2015, he purchased a Nokia 730 mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 357168067101604, vide invoice No.2370 for an amount of Rs.14300/- with a warranty of one year for any kind of defect in the said mobile. For about 6 months of the purchase, the mobile phone worked properly. But thereafter it started giving problems such as screen problems, used to get heated up, gone automatically switch off number of times, Internet Networking problem and has a call drop problem. In this regard, he approached the concerned service centre who told him that the whole front cover screen of the said mobile is required to be changed , which will cost Rs.6500/-. The OP no.2 refused to repair the mobile set free of cost and he was compelled to purchase a new mobile set. Due to the said act of the Ops he has suffered a huge mental agony and physical harassment. He also sent a legal notice dated 5.1.2016 upon the OPs but of no use. Hence this complaint.
3. On being put to notice, OPs no.1&3 appeared and filed their written version having denied that any money was demanded from the complainant as alleged by him for the repair of his mobile set. It is further stated that the charges within warranty period could be demanded only if the handset is physically damaged or liquid logged. The one year warranty of complainant’s handset has lapsed on 21.3.2016. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the same.
OP no.2 failed to appear despite service and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his own sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C4 and closed the evidence.
5. The O.Ps No.1&3 inspite of granting opportunities remained absent and failed to lead evidence on their behalf. They were accordingly proceeded against ex-parte on 18.8.2016.
6. We have heard the complainant in person , gone through the written arguments filed by the complainant and also scrutinized the record of the case, carefully.
7. From the copy of bill dated 21.3.2015, it is evident that complainant purchased a Nokia 730 mobile for an amount of Rs.14300/- from OP No.2. A stamp is also affixed on the bill stating that guarantee/warranty valid by company centre and not by Jyoti Enterprises. The complainant has alleged that inspite of the fact that the mobile set in question was got defective within warranty period and Op No.3 refused to repair the same free of cost and asked him to pay the repair charges. . Although no document regarding warranty has been placed on record by either of the parties, however, the Ops no.1&3 in para no.4 of the written version, have admitted that mobile in question was having one year warranty which lapsed on 21.3.2016. Since the complainant took his mobile set for repair to service centre i.e. OP no.3 within warranty , it was the bounded duty of the service centre to repair the same, free of cost . The OP no.3 by refusing to repair the same has committed deficiency in service. Due to non repair of mobile set in question, the complainant has been deprived of its use and he was compelled to purchase a new mobile set. Therefore, OP no. 3 is liable to compensate the complainant. As such we are of the opinion that it is a fit case, where the cost of the said mobile is refunded to the complainant alongwith compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. Since the OP no.3 is the authorized service centre of OP no.1,therefore, OP no.1 being manufacturer is vicariously liable for act and conduct of OP no.3 and is also liable to compensate the complainant alongwith OP no.3. Sofar as the liability of No.2 is concerned, it may be stated that in the complaint, the complainant has averred that he had purchased the mobile set in question from OP no.2. Neither any specific allegation has been leveled against OP no.2 nor it has been proved. Thus no liability can be fastened against the said OP. Thus the complaint filed against it is liable to be dismissed.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint against Op no.2 and allow the same against Ops no.1&3.The Ops no.1&3 are directed as under:
- To refund the amount of Rs.14,300/-, the same being the price of the mobile phone.
- To pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation
The Ops no.1&3 are further directed to comply with the order jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:29.12.2016
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
