Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/15/2017

Jagdeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Puri Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Sh H S Tiwana

24 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No.15 of 2017

                                                     Date of institution : 01.03.2017                                         

                                              Date of decision    : 24.11.2017

Jagdeep Singh son of Bhagwant Singh R/o Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Sanipur road at Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Puri Telecom, Opp. Sofat Electronics, Bassi road, Sirhind Mandi, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its partner/Proprietor.
2. Oppo authorized service Centre, opposite UCO Bank, Lalheri road, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.
3. Guangdong Opp Mobile Telecommunication Corporation Ltd; No.18, Halbil road, Wusha, Chang'an Town, Dongguan, China through its authorized signatory.
4. Oppo Mobile telecommunication Ltd. having its Head Office at Vatika Business Park, 2^nd Floor, Sona road, Sector 49, Guru Gram, Gurgaon, (Haryana).

  …..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :        Sh.H.S.Tiwana, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.                            

                     Opposite parties No. 1, 2 & 4 exparte.

                      Complaint against OP No.3 is dismissed as withdrawn.

ORDER

 

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                      Complainant, Jagdeep Singh son of Bhagwant Singh R/o Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Sanipur road at Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant purchased a mobile hand set Oppo-Fit bearing IMEI No.869770024726455/869770024726448, Model X9009IN from OP No.1, vide invoice No.01 dated 09.06.2016 for a sum of Rs.27,000/-. OP No.1 has given warrantee/guarantee of two years for any defect in the said mobile hand set and also assured that if there is any defect occurred in the said mobile hand set, it will refund the amount along with interest. On 13.11.2016,  the mobile hand set created problem of automatically changed the number and dialed any other number and it also automatically off and network problem. On the same day the complainant approached OP No.1 and told about the said problems in the mobile hand set. OP No.1 retained the mobile hand set with it and assured that the same will be sent to Oppo care centre and mobile will be handed over to the complainant after 10/15 days after removal of the defects. On 30.11.2016, OP No.1 handed over the mobile hand set to the complainant with the assurance that the same will not create any problem in future. But after using the mobile, the complainant found that the defects have not been removed and on 21.12.2016 the complainant again approached OP No.1 and informed about the said problem. OP No.1 again retained the mobile hand set with it and issued a job sheet with assurance that the mobile hand set will be handed over to the complainant within one month after removal of the defect. Thereafter on 23.01.2017 the complainant approached OP No.1, who handed over the mobile hand set to the complainant after taking the job sheet. But the defects in the mobile hand set were not removed by the OPs. Then again complainant approached OP No.1, who advised the complainant to approach OP No.2. Accordingly, the complainant approached OP No.2, which is service centre of the company.  The officials of OP No.2, after checking the mobile hand set, told the complainant that there is some software problem in the mobile hand set, which cannot be removed. Then on 22.02.2017, the complainant again approached OP No.1 and requested to replace the defective mobile hand set with new one or to refund the amount of mobile hand set. But OP No.1 totally refused to redress his grievance and suggested to approach OPs No. 3 & 4. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund Rs.27,000/- i.e. the price of the mobile hand set along with interest, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation charges.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to OPs No.1,2 and 4 as the complainant has withdrawn this complaint against OP No.3. OPs No.1,2 and 4 have failed to appear to contest this complaint despite service. Hence, they were proceeded against exparte.
4. In order to prove his complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, true copies of documents i.e. bill dated 09.06.2016 Ex. C-2, job card Ex. C-3, adhaar card Ex. C-4 and closed the evidence.
5. The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant had approached OP No.2 through OP No.1 regarding the defect in the mobile hand set first on 30/11/2016, thereafter on 21/12/2016, 23/01/2017 and 22/02/2017 during the warranty period of the mobile hand set. The ld.counsel also submitted that OP No.2 told the complainant not to use the Internet and download the third party applications etc as there was software problem and OP No.2 further told complainant that the defect in the mobile hand set cannot be removed. The ld. counsel argued that as per the warrantee OPs no.2 & OP No.4 were bound to replace the mobile set.  

6.                   After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the complainant and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find that there is force in the submissions of the ld. counsel for the complainant. It is established from the job card(Ex.C-2) that the mobile was having software problem and further it was within the warrantee period. The Hon’ble State Commission in  Mangal Singh Versus M/s Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd and Ors(2009(3)CPC 586),M/s Radio house Versus Sandeep Gosh (2008(1)CPC 703) has held in the similar facts and circumstances that to replace the mobile set or to refund the amount.

7.         In view of the above, we are of the considerate view that it was the responsibility of OPs No.2 & 4 to repair or replace the Mobile Set since, it was under warranty. OP No.1 is only the retailer, hence he has nothing to do with the defect/functioning of the said mobile set. Hence we find that OPs No.2 & 4 had committed deficiency in service and had not been able to properly redress the grievance of the complainant. Accordingly, we direct the OPs No.2 & 4 to properly repair/rectify the Mobile Set within a period of 15 days and if the problem persists again, then replace the same with a new one or refund the amount of Rs.27,000 /-  within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Hence the present complaint is partly accepted. Complainant is also held entitled to the damages suffered by him on account of harassment and mental tension. The damages are assessed at Rs.3000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2500/-. The damages and the costs may be paid within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

8.          The arguments on the complaint were heard on 17.11.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:24.11.2017

(A.P.S.Rajput)

President

 

(Inder Jit)            

Member