Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/188/2014

Aman S/o Narinder - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saini Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Neeraj Rajoria

03 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                         Complaint No…188 of 2014.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 04.04.2014.

                                                                                         Date of decision: 03.06.2016.

Aman age 15 years son of Sh. Narinder being minor through his father and natural guardian Narinder Kumar s/o Sh. Yash Pal, resident of H. No. 825, Gandhi Marg, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    …Complainant.

 

                                    Versus

 

1. Saini Telecom, Shop No.2, Deva Trust Market, Buria Gate, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor or partner.
2. S. Mobility Ltd. S Global Knowledge Park, 19A & 19B, Sector-125, Noida-201301 U.P.
3. Singh Communication, Shop No. 5, Paras Ram Chowk, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.   

                                                                                                                                             …Respondents.

                         

 

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG,  PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Neeraj Rajoria, Advocate, counsel for complainant. 

               Sh. Rajan Bhatia, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2 & 3.

               Respondent No.1  already ex-parte.              

             

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to refund an amount of Rs. 2350/- cost of the mobile alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.  

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased a mobile set for a sum of Rs. 2350/- vide bill No. 16 dated 21.07.2013 (Annexure C-1) from the Op No.1 whose manufacturer is OP No.2 and service centre is OP No.3. After purchasing the said phone the complainant immediately realised that the said phone inherits some defects i.e. touch of the said phone was not working properly and screen of the said phone was not clear and there was also some problem in the charging. Not only this, network was also not connected. The complainant reported the said defects to the Op No.1 who asked the complainant to approach the OP No.3 Service Centre and the complainant reported the matter to the OP No.3. The official of OP No.3, after receiving the phone refused to issue any receipt for repairing the defects in the phone and asked the complainant to come after one month. When after one month, complainant visited the OP No.3, then Op No.3 returned the mobile set in question to the complainant with assurance that now the mobile set will work properly but the same could not yield any result. When again the complainant, alongwith his father, visited the OP No.3 then instead of giving any satisfactory reply OP No.3 began to misbehave and mobile of the complainant was thrown on the floor resulting in the breakage of screen of mobile phone. In this way, from the above facts, it is clear that mobile set in question was having manufacturing defect and the OP No.3 could not remove the same which constitute deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint. In support of his complaint  counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and copy of bill dated 21.07.2013 as Annexure C-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

3.                     Upon notice OP No. 1 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.07.2015. OPs No.2 & 3 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in the eye of law; complaint is not maintainable; there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs; OP company possess a good- will and have established in market and enjoying the good reputation over the years in respect of the business and on merit it has been stated that OPs No.2 & 3 have no idea about the whole conversation held between complainant and Op No.1 i.e. dealer, in addition, it has been stated that Op No.2 & 3 never forced our customer to approach to us and purchase handset, they does with their own will. Further, it has been mentioned that complainant have not attached a single job sheet which assist his allegations that he approached to the authorized service centre for rectification of defects in hand set, so, merely a statement that complainant have approached to the Service Centre does not prove its existence. Further, it has been mentioned that complainant himself is not an expert who is commenting about the handset that handset has a manufacturing defect. Lastly prayed that all the allegations have been leveled falsely and the mobile set in question was not having any manufacturing defect and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 failed to adduce any evidence, hence its evidence was closed by court order dated 18.04.2016.

4.         We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file carefully and minutely.

5.                     It is admitted case that the complainant had purchased a mobile set make spice M-5915 bearing EMI No. 911326800025584 and 911326800025592 for a sum of Rs 2350/- on dated 21.07.2013 vide Bill No. 16 from Op No.1. The only grievance of the complainant is that mobile set in question was having some problem from its very beginning and despite so many requests the OPs Company has failed to remove the defects from the mobile set in question. So, the complainant is entitled to get the refund of cost of mobile.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 hotly argued that complainant has concocted a false story just to get refund the cost of mobile whereas he never approached to the authorized service centre with any problem. Complainant has not attached even a single job sheet which assist his allegation that he approached to the Service Centre for rectification of the defects in the hand set and in the absence of any job sheet or any report of the mechanics or experts it cannot be said that mobile set in question was having any manufacturing defect. Learned counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 further argued that even the present complaint has been filed after a period of more than 8 months. Meaning thereby that complainant had used the mobile set in question for 8 months without any problem and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.                     After hearing both the parties and going through the documents placed on file, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs as the present complaint has been filed during the currency of warranty period as mobile set in question was having warranty of one year. Although the complainant has not placed on file any job sheet to prove the defects in the mobile set in question, but the complainant has specifically mentioned in his complaint that mobile set in question was having some defects from the very beginning such as touch of the said phone was not working properly and screen of the said phone was not clear. Not only this, there was also a net work problem. So, it cannot be said that mobile set in question was not having any problems. Moreover, no affidavit of any official of the service centre i.e. Op No.3 has been placed on file in support of their version that complainant never approached to the Service Centre. As the complainant has filed the present complaint within a period of 7-8 months during the currency of warranty, hence, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 & 3.

8.                     Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs No.2 & 3 to remove all the defects free of costs from the mobile set in question  and further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 03.06.2016.

 

(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

 PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                                 MEMBER.