| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No.70 of 2015 Date of Institution: 28-01-2015 Date of Decision: 11-12-2015 Sukhdev Singh son of Balbir Singh, resident of Gali Naiyan Wali, Village: Behdwarh, Tehsil: Ajnala, District Amritsar. Complainant Versus - Nokia India (P) Limited, Ist Floor, Tower A & B, Cybergreen, DLF Cyber City, Sector 25-A, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Principal Officer.
- M/s.D.K.Marketing, 28, Ground Floor, Nehru Shopping Complex, Lawrence Road, Amritsar through its partner/ proprietor.
- M/s.AA Electronics, 106-B, Ist Floor, Sunrise Plaza, Cooper Road, Amritsar through its partner/ proprietor.
Opposite Parties Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Ajay Shanker, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties: Exparte. Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Sukhdev Singh, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased mobile set Nokia Asha 502 for Rs.5800/- bearing IMEI No.358149058402945 from Opposite Party No.2 vide Invoice No.3431 dated 5.2.2014, manufactured by Opposite Party No.1. Complainant alleges that soon after the purchase of this mobile set, while using the same, the complainant found that there was the problem/ defect of its touch screen and it was not properly functioning. The complainant immediately approached Opposite Party No.2 and brought to his notice the said defect, who asked the complainant to approach to their authorized service centre i.e. Opposite Party No.3. Accordingly, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 and brought to their notice the defect/ problem being faced by the complainant in the mobile set. Opposite Party No.3 checked the mobile set in question and repaired the mobile set of the complainant for 2-3 times, but the same defect in the mobile set in question was not removed, as a result the complainant visited Opposite Party No.3 from time to time and requested them to make it proper functional by removing the said defect. Ultimately, Opposite Party No.3 kept the mobile set and issued service job sheet bearing No.170433527/ 140002/034 dated 2.10.2014 mentioning the major problem of touch screen, etc. and asked the complainant to get back the mobile set after some days. The complainant visited Opposite Party No.3 after 10 days, but Opposite Party No.3 sought more time to make the necessary repairs, then the complainant again visited Opposite Party No.3 time to time upto 30.10.2014 and when the mobile set was handed over to the complainant, it was facing the same problem and the said defect was not removed. The complainant immediately brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.3, the said defect/ problem, but they paid no need to the request of the complainant stating that it was the manufacturing defect and it can not be removed. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties either to replace the mobile set in question with new one or to refund its total price alongwith with interest. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, initially Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties, but later on none appeared nor filed the written version on behalf of Opposite Parties, so Opposite Parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.6.2015 of this Forum.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of job sheet Ex.C3 and closed the exparte evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the complainant; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the complainant and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the complainant with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the complainant.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and averments of the complaint and evidence produced on record by the complainant, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant purchased mobile set Nokia Asha 502 for Rs.5800/- bearing IMEI No.358149058402945 from Opposite Party No.2 vide Invoice No.3431 dated 5.2.2014 Ex.C2. Said mobile set became defective and there was the problem/ defect of its touch screen and it was not properly functioning. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 i.e authorized service centre, who repaired the mobile set in question and returned the same to the complainant, but the problem in the mobile set remains same as its touch screen did not function. Ultimately the complainant handed over the mobile set to Opposite Party No.3 vide job sheet dated 2.10.2014 Ex.C3 with problem of touch screen and the Opposite Party No.3 returned the same to the complainant after a period of more than one month, but the complainant found that mobile set was facing same problem. He again brought this fact to the notice of Opposite Party No.3, but Opposite Party No.3 failed to repair the mobile set of the complainant. The complainant proved all these averments through his affidavit Ex.C1 and also proved on record the Invoice Ex.C2 and job sheet Ex.C3. The evidence produced on record by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged as none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties despite service to contest the case of the complainant nor any person from the Opposite Parties dared to file an affidavit to rebut the case of the complainant.
- So, from the entire unrebutted evidence produced by the complainant on record, it stands fully proved on record that the mobile set of the complainant was suffering from inherent defects, which did not admit repair/ rectification. As such, the Opposite Parties are liable to replace the mobile set of the complainant or to refund the amount of the mobile set in question to the complainant alongwith interest.
- Resultantly, we allow the complaint of the complainant exparte with costs and the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund the price of the mobile set i.e. Rs. 5800/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 are also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 11-12-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
