Haryana

Jind

54/14

Vikas - Complainant(s)

Versus

Non Stop Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. R.K. Singla

13 Feb 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                           Complaint No. 54 of 2014

   Date of Institution: 20.5.2014

   Date of final order: 13.2.2015

Vikas s/o Satbir r/o 150/5 Hakikat Nagar, Jind, Tehsil and District Jind.                                                             ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

1. Non Stop Mobile shop No.2 opposite old bus stand, Shastri Market, Jind through its Proprietor.
2. Karbonn Mobiles D-170 Industrial Area Okhla, Phase No.1 New Delhi-110020 through its Managing Director.
3. Shri Krishna Mobile shop Patiala Chowk, Jind-126102 throguh its Proprietor.

                                                          …..Opposite parties.

 

                          Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before: Sh. Hari Singh Khokhar, President.

            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.

 

Present:  Sh. R.K. Singla , Adv. for complainant.

              Sh. Deepak Sachdeva, Adv. for  opposite Party No.2&3.

              Opposite party No.1  already ex-parte.

            

ORDER:

 

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased one Karbonn mobile model SE-7 for a sum of Rs.6,250/- vide bill No.1718 dated 7.6.2013 from opposite party No.1, opposite party No.2 is manufacturing company and opposite party No.3 is authorized service centre. The opposite party No.1 gave one year warranty of the above said mobile set. After the purchase there was a manufacturing defect in the  mobile set and mobile  got heated after some time of use and a foul smell was also felt. The complainant met with opposite party No.1 and told about the defect of the mobile set. Thereafter, the opposite party No.1 told the complainant to get his

                        Vikas Vs. Non Stop Mobile etc.

                                …2…

mobile repair from the opposite party No.3 who is authorized service centre of the opposite party No.2. The complainant went to the authorized service center of opposite party No.2 on 22.6.2013 and got checked his mobile. The Engineer/Mechanic of service centre checked the mobile set thoroughly and found the defect and after two-three days returned the mobile after repairing. But the said mobile could not functioning properly and started again creating problem. The complainant  visited the service center of opposite party No.2 several times for removing the defect of the mobile but the problem of the said mobile could not be solved. The mobile set of the complainant is still lying dead due to manufacturing defect. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile set with new one or in alternative refund the costs of the mobile i.e. Rs.6,250/- along with interest @ 18% p.a., a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party No. 2 and 3 have appeared and filed the joint written statement  stating in the preliminary objections i.e.  the  complaint is not maintainable in the present forum; the complainant has no cause of action and  locus-standi to file the present complaint and  the complaint is false and frivolous.  On merits, it is contended that  there was no defect of any kind and there was no any warranty  on the above said mobile set purchased by the complainant. There was no technical or manufacturing defect in the said mobile and there is no report of any expert which can prove that there was any defect in the above said mobile set.  All the other allegations have

 

                        Vikas Vs. Non Stop Mobile etc.

                                …3…

been denied by the answering opposite parties. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite parties.

 Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for.

3.     Notice issued to opposite party No.1 received back duly served but none has come present on behalf opposite party No.1. Hence, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 7.7.2014.

4.        In evidence, the complainant has produced  his own affidavit  Ex. C-1,  copy of cash memo Ex. C-2 and copy of document ex. C-3 and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.2 and 3 have not produced the evidence despite last opportunity and evidence of opposite party No.2 and 3 was closed by court order dated 12.11.2014.

5.     We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The complainant had purchased a mobile model SE-7 from the opposite party No.1 vide bill No.1718 dated 7.6.2013 for a sum of Rs.6,250/- Ex. C-2, opposite party No.2 is manufacturing company and opposite party No.3 is authorized service centre. The opposite party No.1 gave one year warranty of the above said mobile set. After the purchase of said mobile the complainant observed that there was manufacturing defect and said mobile got heated after some time of use and a foul smell was also felt and the battery was very poor. The complainant informed the opposite party No.1 about the defect of his mobile set. The opposite party No.1 told the complainant to get his mobile repair from opposite party No.3 who is authorized service centre of opposite party No.2. The Mechanic/Engineer of service centre repaired the mobile set of complainant but the said mobile set started again creating problem. The complainant visited the service centre several times but problem

 

                        Vikas Vs. Non Stop Mobile etc.

                                …4…

 of the said mobile could not be solved. The mobile set of the complainant is still dead due to manufacturing defect. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged.

6.     On the other hand, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 have averred that there is no technical or manufacturing defect in the said mobile and there is no report of any expert which can prove that there was any defect in the said mobile. All the other allegations have been denied by the answering opposite parties.

7.     The cash memo Ex. C-2 prove the purchase of mobile set by the complainant from the opposite party No.1. The complainant has fully supported his case by his own affidavit Ex. C-1. The complainant also produced service centre copy in evidence Ex. C-3.

8.     After going through the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the opposite parties have failed to remove the

 defect of said mobile set and the mobile of the complainant was within warranty period and it was obligatory either to repair or replace. Deficiency in service is established on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to repair the mobile of the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant or to replace it with new one within a period of one month from the date of order of this case. Parties will bear their own costs.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced on: 13.2.2015

                                                                President,

 Member                                      District Consumer Disputes                                                                  Redressal Forum, Jind